Behind the scenes of F1's latest mess

When it comes to on-track action, Formula 1 has an uncanny knack of extricating itself from its self-inflicted mire. Just consider: no sooner had Formula One Management's CEO Bernie Ecclestone told a major news outlet that "the sport is the worst it has ever been. I wouldn't spend my money to take my family to watch a race. No way", than it miraculously staged four scintillating races in a row.

True, a variety of factors such as duffed starts and questionable reliability aided the cause, as did the almost magnetic-attraction between Red Bulls and Ferraris, but, overall the racing down the order has been world class, and certainly not the worst it's ever been.

The same accolade cannot, though, be showered upon F1 when it comes to off-track conduct, which, it can be stated without fear of contradiction, is about "the worst it has ever been". Just when F1 desperately needs to instil confidence in its governance process after that farcical flip-flopping qualifying debacle it calls an F1 Commission meeting that does not even attract the necessary quorum.

Result? Three days later, after much lobbying and scurrying about, the 25 members e-voted on a raft of urgent measures designed to negate much of the criticism - ranging from costs through power disparity and lack of noise to selective supply arrangements - aimed at F1's exquisite power units by folk who really should know better, and whose official role it is to foster F1.

That the matter was urgent can be gleaned from an already extended deadline of April 30 - after which date agreed measures would need to be rolled over to 2018 as the procedure requires that agreement for rule changes aimed at the following season be reached by March 1 of the current year. Unanimous agreement enabled a concessionary postponement by 60 days after consensus failed to materialise last time around.

According to Ecclestone the reason given for the stay-away - no other term could be applied, for the process provides for proxies that were seemingly not registered - by all eight promoters (and sponsor Rolex's representative) was "there wasn't enough interest for the promoters". Really? The same promoters who recently screamed for louder engines and more competitive racing had zero interest in attending a crucial meeting?

While a case could be made for the four out-of-Europe promoters (Australia, Bahrain, Brazil and Russia) on distance grounds (plus the last-named had a looming event), the rest - representing Hungary, Monaco, Italy and Belgium, plus Mr Rolex - reside within easy two/three-hour travel from F1's headquarters in Biggin Hill.

One wonders why they accept nominations to F1's supreme rule defining body if crucial agendas clearly hold little interest and they are then insufficiently bothered to appoint proxies.

Various parties at Sochi questioned the state of a series that convenes a meeting without a prescribed quorum, and "not knowing that certain delegates would fail to arrive" holds no water, for not only is the process unambiguous, but it has certain checks and balances such as no member holding more than one proxy. Plus, it has been regularly applied in the past.

Surely someone, somewhere would/should have realised that NINE delegates (one third of the count) had failed to advise travel arrangements, then not tendered apologies. Saliently, it appears teams no longer have any input into the selection process, having in the past had the powers to appoint two each in- and outside Europe promoters, plus two sponsor representatives.

While all and sundry are likely to have utterly plausible reasons/excuses ranging from "the dog ate my fax paper" to "our cat gave birth" for not travelling/apologising/pitching/finding zero items of interest (delete as applicable), but if a creature walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it surely it is a duck - and last Tuesday it seemed to waddle about jauntily.

The structure of the Commission, too, raises questions, for included in the list of delegates is (now retired) Australian Grand Prix Corporation chairman Ronald J Walker, who, according to a circuit spokesperson "no longer has an official role with AGPC", having been replaced in August 2015. What, then empowers him to vote on current F1 matters, save that he is a long-standing friend of Ecclestone's?

Equally, why does Philip Morris International - purveyor of Marlboro - continue to hold a seat as sponsor representative? The brand no longer has any active involvement in F1 save for off-circuit activation via Ferrari. Add in that Ferrari president Sergio Marchionne sits on PMI's board, and allegations of undue influence could be levelled.

Then, why should Mr Rolex hold the same voting powers as, say Ecclestone or FIA president Jean Todt, or, for that matter, all power unit suppliers combined - represented by Renault's Rob White, which, as an aside, endows his team with two votes. Indeed, why should Rolex even be represented given its only contribution to F1 is a big annual cheque and some oversized watches in the pitlane?

Previously the 'other' sponsor representative had been an oil company (Mobil or Shell), which, given their technical roles - and the fact that fuel regulations are regularly up for review - made more sense than Rolex. If a watch brand it needs to be, why not TAG Heuer, given its long-standing support of F1, as commercial and technical partner - but, of course, its contribution flows to a team, not FOM.

The long and short of this en masse boycott was that no constructive dialogue was possible prior to e-voting - how could it have been? - yet this same block was expected to vote knowledgeably on crucial issues within days of not even bothering to register proxies.

The first question is whether there will be legal challenges (as previously alluded to here); the second is whether informed decisions were even possible. Forget not F1 (twice) e-voted on a matter as simple as a qualifying format that was not even broken; imagine, then, how easily votes on complex questions about engine pricing, parity, availability and noise - to be sorted via sound generators - could go wrong.

A feature of e-voting is that it facilitates, publicly at least, a fudging of positions that is impossible to achieve with a show of hands. While there is no suggestion that the outcome was in any way rigged, it is telling that paddock patter had five members voting against the engine proposals, whereas the actual number is three: McLaren, and the two Red Bull teams. What, then, do two members have to hide?

Nor were engines the only item on the e-agenda. However, before addressing that topic - yes, all four aspects were lumped together without options to vote, say, for noise and price, but not power convergence and guaranteed supply - first a word on what was not discussed: contrary to twitter-talk, as outlined here 2017's aero/bodywork/tyre regulations were not put to the vote as these had previously been ratified.

Toto Wolff of Mercedes is said to have readdressed this issue despite having voted for the regulations last time around, but subsequently changed his mind after Mercedes studied simulations that surely should have been run when the changes were first mooted. The Austrian was allegedly given short shrift, and that was it: as they should, the regulations remain as announced by the FIA World Motor Sport Council on March 4.

Back, though, to the boycott: cynics in the Sochi paddock suggested it had been orchestrated by Ecclestone in order to delay decisions beyond April 30, making them null and void, but this makes little sense, for it was he who pushed for price reductions, power parity and increased noise - failing which the so-called "independent engine" could be triggered. Plus, he surely would have realised an e-vote could be called.

More likely is that, having lost the vote on the independent engine at F1 Commission level last November, the FOM/FIA axis figured a secret e-vote, massaged by much behind-the-scenes lobbying, would deliver the desired result. In order to achieve the objective the meeting needed to be declared null and void - and the rest is now history.

Four items were put to e-vote: power units as a single voting block encompassing parity, price, guaranteed supply and noise; fuel weight increase by five kilogrammes to cater for the increased performance of the 2017 aero, bodywork and engine changes; restriction of five fuel upgrades per year; and a last-minute proposal to carry over unused intermediates from Friday to Saturday should FP1/2 prove dry, and FP3 wet as per China.

As stated, the engine regulations were approved with three opposing votes - although it may not be the last we hear of the matter, for at Sochi various sources alluded to legal action - while the fuel weight increase was carried despite opposition from the four Mercedes-powered teams, citing environmental concerns.

It is easy to adopt the moral high ground when you have access to the most thermally efficient power unit on the grid. The fuel proposal was unanimously approved, although the tyre change was rejected, ostensibly as the proposal had not followed due process, which must be a first.

Unless legal challenges prevail, F1 has the 2017 rules it does not deserve, with the saving grace being that criticism about the state of F1 by race promoters should never again be taken seriously. Not only could these gentlemen not be bothered to attend a crucial F1 Commission meeting or submit proxies, but constitute the same group that previously screamed for changes to qualifying format. Look where that got F1.