Why politics will take centre stage in F1 2012

Back in 2009, after an uneasy peace broke out during the most acrimonious season in recent Formula 1 history, 2012 was slated as the final year of the old F1 with its antiquated regulations (some of which hark back to the 1990s); the final season under a make-shift Concorde Agreement.

For the first time, F1 would synchronise its outline regulations and the sport's regulating document in such fashion that both would become effective at the start of 2013, then run through to the end of 2017. To this end the teams made a good start when they extended the Resource Restriction Agreement as framed by their umbrella body, the Formula One Teams' Association, to that point. Alas, it proved too good to be true...

Concorde will still expire on the due date, but as we have seen in the past - when F1 ran the full 2008-'09 seasons without a binding agreement in place - the three signatory parties could well be content to continue under the existing document, itself hurriedly contrived, yet markedly superior to its long-in-the-tooth tripartite predecessor framed back in 1997.

However, even the latest iteration was found chronically wanting when it came to regulation changes, with the net result being that the FIA (on the one side) and the commercial rights' holder and teams (collectively on the other) disagreed on a timeframe for the introduction of the sport's planned 'green' engine regulations.

The governing body was adamant its turbocharged, heavily hybridised 1600cc four-pot formula would be introduced in 2013; the other two parties threatened revolt and litigation - with a stand-off eventually being averted through a switch to 1600cc V6 units to be introduced a year later. Thus the sport again finds itself totally out of sync on fundamental issues.

However, to those players currently in the sport, this makes little difference - on the face of it it could be construed to be an entirely logical move - for it enables engine suppliers to eke out yet another year from their V8 units, despite them having roots in the V10 engines of the 1990s. This in turn reduces the cost/time pressures associated with engineering their 'green' units and their complex ancillaries.

However, Concorde (and the regulations) make provision for 13 teams, although after the fiasco of USF1 there are currently 12 on the grid and various entities (this column knows of two: Lola and Stefan Grand Prix) are formulating plans to grab the vacant slot from 2013.

USF1 never made it to the track, creating a 13th team space in F1 © LAT

Until June this year, at which point the engine regulations were amended/postponed, this presented little problem, for any nascent team could plan its brand new car plus entry in one hit, having at least 18 months to do so.

Given that F1's three 'new' teams - as they're still known despite each heading into its third season - had less than half that period to make it to the Bahrain grid in 2010, that timeframe would appear to present comparatively little difficulty, although cynics forward that as reason for their singular lack of points-scoring results despite having blown at least US$300million between them in the past two seasons.

That said, they at least had the benefit of continuity, for F1's base regulations changed very little over the those two years. However, F1's prospective entries now face even bigger challenges should they aim to line up next year, for as things stand now they would need to engineer cars to two totally different formulae from scratch, all within less than 30 months: one design to see them through 2013, then another built to the 'green' regulations.

Sitting out 2013 is not, though, an option, for Concorde requires teams to commit to the full period, plus non-participation would shut any newcomer out of any negotiations, so once again F1 finds itself in Catch-22 precisely when it should have as its 2013 slogan 'Grid-26'.

There are some who suggest shutting out newcomers is a strategic move by existing teams and the commercial rights holder, for more teams on the grid invariably means less money elsewhere in the food chain. Others argue that no less than a third of the current grid is endangered, and that the sport's first responsibility should be to those currently on the grid.

A fine sentiment, that, but as long as the commercial rights holder trousers 50 per cent of every buck earned by the sport, that comment has extremely short legs. If anything F1 should be nurturing newcomers, for as Sirs Frank Williams and Jackie Stewart, plus the likes of Ted Toleman and Bruce McLaren, proved, given the right environment today's fledglings mutate into tomorrow's champions. Starve a new generation, and it invariably grows up emaciated; overfeed elders and they die of obesity.

Red Bull and Ferrari are both quitting FOTA in February © sutton-images.com

All this, though, pre-supposes that an extension to the Concorde will be agreed this year - for which read ahead of the next season. In the past F1 has proved rather adept at avoiding burning issues - no doubt fanned by the sport's understandable aversion to flames - and it was only the formation and subsequent perseverance of FOTA that ensured an agreement was signed at all in August 2009, even if it was two years overdue.

However, during the past six weeks the teams' alliance has all but fallen apart, with its membership having been whittled down to eight after Red Bull, Ferrari and Sauber handed in the statutory notice period of three months after a dispute over FOTA's governance of the Resource Restriction Agreement.

RBR's baby sister Toro Rosso is expected to follow suit once the Christmas rush is over, so with HRT having departed almost two years ago, the body could soon be calling upon a membership of just seven teams - remarkably all British - or a sliver over half the grid. Not much firepower in there, is there?

It is this almost 50/50 split that makes Concorde consensus extremely difficult to achieve. While FOTA, chaired by McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh, has the numerical whip hand, it needs to pander to the vastly differing needs of three multi-championship-winning teams while keeping Caterham and Marussia sweet.

Now that Concorde has provided Bernie Ecclestone, CEO of the rights-holding entity, with freedom to negotiate individual deals with teams after banning such practice until January 1, the octogenarian has no doubt been working the phones in Princes Gate. However, dividing the pot among such high achievers as Ferrari and RBR is hardly likely to be the work of a moment.

Sauber won't be a walkover, either, for the Swiss team has the extremely capable Indo-Austrian lawyer Monisha Kaltenborn on its side, while Toro Rosso's negotiations are likely to ride on the back of those conducted by its sister operation.

Given that previous Concorde negotiations took three years to not be completed - and that sources vow no talks took place before the most recent New Year's Eve - coupled with the fact that teams are pushing for a marked increase in revenues (up from the current 50 per cent of F1's underlying revenues to around 70 per cent), overall agreement seems unlikely this year. Thus any newcomer may well find itself building just one new design...

Max and Bernie faced the threat of a FOTA breakaway series in 2009 © LAT

The FOTA 'rebels' could, having made their point, decide that strength in numbers provides them with the sort of negotiating clout required to take on the formidable Bernard Charles Ecclestone and his merry men (and woman) and elect to rejoin the body originally founded by Ferrari's Luca di Montezemolo. In that case negotiations could well be concluded slightly faster if not as lucratively for the majors, but having left it so late, FOTA is unlikely to make convincing threats of a breakaway series - as they did in 2009.

Concorde permits teams to make preparations for a breakaway series from January 1, although, saliently, they are prohibited from making any public statement to this effect until after the finale of the 2012 world championship, save for responding to direct media enquiries from July 1, 2012 onwards.

Wading into this affair came former FIA president Max Mosley who, don't forget, has an axe to grind after being pressured into stepping aside as part of the corrosive 2009 negotiations. Recently he suggested that Ecclestone should offer equal monies to eight teams, thus leaving the four majors out in the cold unless they agreed to race for zero return, with their sponsors alone picking up their considerable costs.

His logic is that the four would be unable to mount the breakaway series they now have the freedom to formulate; by the same token he is obviously going all out to protect the three newcomers, whom he sees very much as being his legacy. Strange, though, that he should end up on FOTA's side...

Equally strange that he, a member of the FIA Senate by right, should be the only FIA office bearer to express an opinion on the matter, for the governing body is very much party to the agreement, while his successor Jean Todt has to all intents and purposes - publicly at least - kept quiet.

All of which points to a tumultuous year ahead on the political front, with various 'will they?' scenarios sure to raise their heads: will Ecclestone cut a deal with the majors? Will he leave them out in the cold? Will the rebels rejoin FOTA or will FOTA plan for a rebel series? Will one (or even two) new teams apply for entries in the 2013-onwards championship? Will Concorde be extended this year or next? Finally, will the commercial rights holder agree to 75 per cent of revenues - a move that could prove to be the salvation of F1, for at last the teams would be properly rewarded for their efforts?

The F1 year ahead promises to be less volatile than 2009, but no less exciting for all that.