The problems Formula 1 can't ignore

When team principals request updates on the latest in paddock politics from journalists, then surely passionate fans of arguably the world's most strife-ridden global pastime must be equally bewildered.

With 2013 already 25 per cent done, no Concorde Agreement is in place, just eight months remain before eco-friendly 'green' power units replace the sonorous 18,000rpm 2400cc V8s that have served the sport in some form since the last millennium, Pirelli's sole-tyre-supplier contract expires at the same time, and Formula 1's Resource Restriction Agreement no longer enjoys priority at official level.

Time, surely, for a 'state-of-the-nation' summary.

Concorde Agreement

The lack of a replacement Concorde Agreement for the 2010-12 covenant has left the sport without clear-cut governance procedures for the first time in over 30 years, despite September 2012 having originally been targeted as completion date for the proposed 2013-20 edition.

Thus, as things stand, should contentious sporting/technical issues arise or urgent rule amendments be required, then the FIA's Sporting Code provides guidelines, but its provisions are by their nature cursory.

Charlie Whiting © XPB

The Code does not provide for specific incidents - such as rows over the controversial suspension systems developed by such as Mercedes and Lotus - nor, crucially, does commercial rights holder Formula One Management have input into the process, which is another major bone of contention.

"In the absence of a Concorde Agreement, we had to resort to the Sporting Code," said FIA race director/ technical delegate Charlie Whiting ahead of the start of the season.

"It is clear about rule changes. We consult the teams via what, in essence, are unofficial technical and sporting working groups and then we take proposals to the World [Motorsport] Council. There's very little difference to our previous method of operation."

While Whiting is essentially correct, the FIA's WMSC sits but once a month, and previously ratified matters escalated to it by the now-non-existent Formula 1 Commission, which relied upon input from the (disbanded) Sporting/Technical Working Groups respectively. Presently, a sort of 'gentlemen's agreement' to not rock the boat too much is in place, and it is surely only a matter of time.

However, FOM has only itself to blame after Bernie Ecclestone, who allegedly thrice promised the FIA's World Motorsport Council that it was a matter of weeks before the Agreement was readied, in February declared a Concorde unnecessary as part of his negotiating position.

All this, though, has strengthened the FIA while leaving the teams hanging in limbo, unable to, for example, call meetings of the Working Groups or F1 Commission, as had previously been their right.

Publicly, team principals have confirmed their faith in this ad hoc governance procedure - but off-record it is another matter entirely, with more than one suggesting it is a tinder box awaiting a match.

Schedule 10

As outlined last week, Schedule 10 is the Concorde section detailing the sport's billion-dollar revenue split.

Where the previous Concorde provided for all teams to be treated identically within the distribution tables contained therein - save for Ferrari, which benefitted from a historic bonus - the proposed schedule differentiates between the three Constructors' Championship Bonus teams - Ferrari, Red Bull and McLaren - Mercedes/Williams as 'legacy teams', a group of five teams, and Marussia - last-named not qualifying for any paydays even if the budget team lists the championship.

Ferrari benefits from its historic status © LAT

So concerned are they that team bosses and financial officers have met three times to discuss this escalating situation, with it being agreed after a teleconference shortly before Easter that Caterham's Cyril Abiteboul would "prepare a road map for the future".

Another was held last week, with a follow-up meeting of FOTA's Exco scheduled for Sunday morning at which a number of issues will be discussed, including a so-called group-vote pact to prevent teams falling prey to Ecclestone's classic tactic of picking off individual squads.

Formula 1 Commission/Sporting and Technical Working Groups

Where the previous Concorde provided for a Formula 1 Commission made up of all team principals, sponsors, race promoters/circuit management, engine/tyre partners and FIA/FOM representatives, the commission was last disbanded in a favour of the proposed structure of three team bosses representing the CCBs, with Mercedes, Williams and a sixth representative (Lotus on current performance) providing additional input.

After an outcry it was agreed to retain the F1 Commission in a reduced form, with the sextet then providing strategic input, but no Concorde Agreement means no F1 Commission, which means no formal F1 discussions involving all player groups - absolutely unfathomable, particularly given F1's global status and the billions committed to the sport by teams, sponsors and commercial/technical partners, the media and motor industry.

The same applies to the Sporting/Technical Working Groups, which effectively functioned as sporting/ technical offshoots of the F1 Commission, comprising sporting/technical representatives respectively from all teams, plus Whiting as FIA representative. (Refer Whiting's comments above.)

Tyre contract

Despite almost three months having elapsed since Pirelli indicated that it wished to extend its tyre supply contract for a further (five- or seven-year) period, there has been no further progress save that the FIA is adamant it will go out to tender as required in the terms of Clause 25.2 of the Sporting Regulations.

F1 is without a tyre contract for 2014 © LAT

Time is running out faster than Pirelli's supersofts degrade.

After Bridgestone in November 2009 gave more than 12 months' notice of exiting the sport, seven long months elapsed before Pirelli was confirmed as sole supplier for 2011-13.

Imagine if Pirelli's top management suddenly decided enough was enough, and changed their minds...

2014 regulations

The regulations for next year, when V6 compound turbo engines replace the current V8s - necessitating major chassis and suspension changes to boot - have been largely finalised on the technical side, but some sporting i's and t's remain to be dotted and crossed respectively.

Power units are made up of various major components such as engine, turbo, motor-generators, etc, and drivers will be allocated five of each to mix and match, but penalties for transgressing individual unit allowances will be enforced much as engine/gearbox changes currently are. However, the level of detail and exact penalties for breaches remain outstanding.

Said Whiting in mid-March: "We're having lots of meetings within the unofficial [note] powertrain working group, which is composed of the engine suppliers. We have lots of meetings with those suppliers and the ideas that emerge go before the Technical Working Group [which does not formally exist...]."

There is a good chance the tyre regulations may embrace lower profiles, while certain chassis details still need to be sorted. All in, hardly an auspicious start to the most sweeping set of rule changes in 50 years...

Cost restrictions

The biggest current bone of contention surrounds F1's cost-cutting initiatives, first introduced in 2010 at the insistence of the FIA, the governing body at the time refusing to commit to the Concorde Agreement unless all teams subscribed to the Resource Restriction Agreement - as the complex cost control matrix devised by McLaren was termed. That should have been the end of it, certainly until the close of 2012.

However, F1 being F1, that marked the start, for soon Red Bull cast aspersions over a document the team itself had committed to, eventually withdrawing from FOTA over the RRA. Christian Horner, who holds Red Bull's team principal title, told this column last year:

"My personal view," he said, stressing 'personal', "is that the best and most prudent way to control costs is through the regulations, and then your return on investment becomes totally diminished. I think what we've got at the moment isn't so bad. You've got teams like Sauber and Williams and Lotus that are able to run at the sharp end."

Christian Horner © LAT

He repeated his stance - officially - during an interview in Malaysia, and published this week. Cost control by RRA and stable regulations are not, though, mutually exclusive, and there is no earthly reason why the Singapore Agreement and stable regulations cannot be combined to provide a double-whammy effect. But that would remove the advantage held by certain unrestricted teams...

Although the RRA was originally intended to run concurrently with the 2010-12 Concorde, during Singapore 2010 it was redrafted and extended by five years to 2017 via an agreement signed by all teams. Is it legally binding? Depends who one speaks to. Some believe it is, while others are of the opinion that it was drafted as precursor to a formal agreement that failed to materialise.

Either way, FOTA has been charged with coordinating 2013 expenses, and recently wrote to teams requesting that they submit their returns for audit by February 20 2014. The return rate will be fascinating.

A year ago the FIA noted the concerns of the majority of teams, and called a series of meetings: one in Monaco on the day after the grand prix, another in Valencia a month later. Then, as outlined here, in August the FIA circulated alternatives with a request for fax votes.

According to sources, the teams voted overwhelmingly (10 for, two against) to enshrine the RRA in the 2013 Sporting Regulations, with penalties imposed by the governing body for transgressions. There was, though, a procedural problem: unanimity was required, as the vote had taken place after June 30, before when a 70 per cent majority was required in terms of Concorde.

Thus the matter was delayed until 2014. Or so the teams thought.

Then, in India, Ecclestone called a meeting of team bosses and allegedly proposed a budget cap of $250 million per team per year (excluding marketing plus driver/management salaries), but the concept found few takers on account of the exorbitant limit - approximately 250 per cent of the average spend.

Imagine their surprise when they on Tuesday collectively received a letter from the FIA president containing what amounts to a U-turn, with the governing body stating it no longer wished to play a regulatory role in the process.

Still, in Friday's FIA media conference four team principals (excluding Horner) expressed themselves in favour of cost control, while Sunday's FOTA meeting is expected to see McLaren, Lotus, Mercedes, Williams, Force India, Caterham and Marussia, plus non-members Ferrari and Sauber, reaffirm their long-term commitment to cost control.

Thus, as can be seen, F1 is operating on autopilot at present and, as every airline captain knows, that's fine until an emergency hits the flight...