Why would Audi want to enter F1?

The minute news broke that Ferdinand Piech, chairman of the Volkswagen Group's supervisory board and grandson of the original Ferdinand Porsche, and his wife Ursula had resigned their positions on the executive board of the world's number two carmaker, Formula 1 paddock optimists rubbed their hands in glee.

"Now Audi will, nay, must, enter the pinnacle of motorsport," went their refrain.

True, after decades of ruling various roosts in rallying, touring cars and sportscar racing, and most recently defeating allcomers in the first two rounds of the current World Endurance Championship season, Audi may have a thing or two to prove at the top level, particularly given its market competition Mercedes currently dominates the category.

Then factor in that Ferrari, a competitor to Audi brand Lamborghini, is running the Three Pointed Star a close second and that F1's nascent technology is conceptually similar to some of the VW Group's hybrid systems, and it seems a no-brainer, particularly as the dynamic and autocratic Piech, arguably the world's greatest living automotive engineer, was the main blocker whenever F1 was discussed.

In fact, within the group it is said the dogmatic 78-year-old Austrian loathes F1 CEO Bernie Ecclestone for reasons best known to the two legends, but, whatever, in December last year a high-ranking VW executive made no bones about the situation.

"As long as [Ecclestone] is in the chair, the board will never authorise an F1 programme," he told this writer. Then Part II: "Why should they; it makes no sense with whatever brand we have."

Red Bull guru Marko has Le Mans winning history with Porsche © LAT

Note that he said "the board", not Piech - and, while the man who begat both the legendary Porsche 917 project (Red Bull motorsport advisor and Piech's compatriot Helmut Marko co-drove the Le Mans-winning 917 in 1971) - and Audi's equally dominant quattro rally programme could conceivably have his own reasons for disliking the F1 tsar - a single boardroom voice would not be sufficient to veto F1.

For proof look no further than the current upheaval, where Piech's voice alone, albeit a highly influential one, was not sufficient to oust VW CEO and chairman of the executive board Martin Winterkorn, his former protege. Had Piech been as omnipotent as many allege, Winterkorn would by now be history. That said, those who hope the saga has run its course will likely be disappointed: Piech makes a formidable foe.

No sooner had two of Piech's nieces - successful businesswomen both - been appointed to the board in place of Piech and his wife, than he criticised the court order to do so, and indications are that he will mount a legal challenge. In fact, those who know him well expect that, with insiders vowing this tough boardroom brawler will be back - in whatever shape or guise.

Whatever the outcome, VW and industry insiders are adamant that Piech's criticism of Winterkorn's leadership remains valid: per unit margins are well down on competitors despite the group's pioneering platform-sharing strategy, quality demerits are above sector averages, the group's US performance is lamentable and sales in China, where VW ruled supreme in the world's biggest auto market, are dipping.

Sources with ties to Ingolstadt, Bavaria - where Audi is headquartered - maintain that Stefano Domenicali, the former Ferrari team principal now employed by Audi in a senior "mobility" capacity (whatever that means), was last year tasked with a preparing a proposal for an Audi F1 programme.

The Italian business management graduate prepared a ground-up document that covered every facet - including comprehensive plans for a turn-key operation - and presented it to the board.

The bottom line was that Audi needed to commit at least €1billion to the programme at a time when Winterkorn was tasked by primary shareholders (mainly the Porsche/Piech families) to urgently save five times that in one swoop.

Domenicali is understood to have assessed F1 possibilties for Audi © XPB

Given worker aversion to such cuts - in Germany trade union leaders sit on supervisory boards - it is not surprising that Domenicali's document received short shrift despite the enormous awareness Audi enjoyed courtesy of a simultaneous (if brief) foray by its WEC star Andre Lotterer into F1 with Caterham at Spa last year.

However, back to the thrust of this column: why should hi-tech Audi, which popularised four-wheel drive, high performance diesels, lightweight construction and twin clutch transmissions (or any other of the group's car brands: VW itself, Porsche, Skoda, SEAT, Bentley, Lamborghini and Bugatti) enter an automotive activity that so severely limits technology?

Consider, as Audi surely has, that F1 shoots both feet with both barrels whenever its progressive hybrid engines are discussed - just as Toyota considers canning its WEC V8 engine in favour of a four-cylinder unit, F1 calls Strategy Group meetings to consider going the other way - and the criticism Mercedes endures after producing gold standard engines, then wonder whether VW would leave itself prey to such politicking.

Greater restrictions on testing are F1's next step (plans are afoot to reduce the quota to just two pre-season tests). Which global, blue-chip automotive brand would dare enter a high profile sport without opportunities for testing? When Toyota entered F1 in 2002 it had tested for a full season across the globe, yet it failed to win a race in nearly 150 starts despite enormous budgets, turn-key facilities and its World Rally Championship and sportscar pedigree.

Then there is Honda's present plight: Despite a partnership with McLaren - which has data going back two decades, including a full 2014 season with hybrid engines - the Anglo-Nippon cars have thus far failed to score a point, generally qualifying in the last third of a depleting grid.

By contrast the WEC not only permits testing, but has agreements in place that facilitate group and private sessions to a maximum of 40 car-days per year.

LMP1 debutant Nissan has prepared for Le Mans under such provisions, and if sceptical folk suspect that its front-driven racer will prove a failure, they should instead reflect on the fact that WEC permits engineering courage rather than restricting every innovation.

Will BMW be tempted back to sportcar racing's top class? © LAT

Talking of debutants, the word at the WEC's race at Spa over the weekend was that BMW and Ford are eyeing endurance projects, the former understood to be evaluating both LMP1 and GT categories and the latter with its to-be-launched Ford GT, all of which underscores a resurgence of interest in the WEC at manufacturer level.

A total ban on windtunnels in F1 is just a Strategy Group vote away - possibly as soon as May 14 - ostensibly to save costs, which is surely the last thing an Audi would place on top of its priority list when entering the sport. Affordability, yes, but wholesale saving at the expense of technology?

Against that background, consider the formidable challenge facing total F1 virgins. Yes, independents such as Haas F1 Team, due in 2016, can afford to ramp up over a season or three - but could Audi, even if it purchased an existing programme such as the entire Red Bull Racing operation rather than going with the route as proposed by Domenicali and pursued by Toyota?

Still, Toyota went on to become world number one car seller without F1 success, but its humiliation cannot have escaped VW's notice, nor the fact that the Japanese company's predecessor at the top - General Motors - imposed restrictions on motorsport, campaigning in the WRC and suchlike only through dealer or contracted organisations. A story, possibly apocryphal, has it that BMW's sales shot skywards after it exited F1.

That said, at least Toyota, Honda, BMW and Haas (and even GM) had/have home grands prix to savour, while Audi (and VW/Porsche) would be unable to strut their F1 stuff on German soil - nor, for that matter, could Bugatti feature at a home grand prix: France's race died in 2008. If Monza goes - as has been increasingly threatened - Lamborghini, too, would be out in the cold.

Indeed, it seems crazy to reflect that, of VW Group's entire car portfolio, just SEAT and Bentley would this year have grands prix to call home, leaving Porsche and Audi to race on home soil via the WEC at the Nurburgring in August.

AUTOSPORT magazine editor Edd Straw's assertions that F1 and the WEC should not be compared are utterly valid, and anything contained herein is not intended to counter his points, but fact is that boardroom discussions do not centre purely on demographics, but consider the global brand-building qualities of any promotional platform.

The VW Group is happy to let two of its brands race each other in LMP1 © LAT

There must be good reason that Audi and Porsche - whose budgets ultimately flow out of the same corporate kitty - commit at least as much to their combined WEC programmes as does Daimler-Benz to F1 despite the inherent risks of beating each other.

Each has entered three cars for Le Mans, and simple arithmetic dictates that one of their cars will therefore finish only sixth at best - before even factoring Toyota's or Nissan's entries into the equation. That shows real commitment.

Visitors to last Saturday's WEC race at Spa-Francorchamps - the paddock was open to Joe Public and Family throughout, with pitlane walkabouts included in the three-day pass price of £25 - cannot fail to have been impressed by enormous hospitality facilities provided by both Audi and Porsche, or by the fact that the former beat its sister by just 13 seconds after six hours of nip-and-tuck using totally different technology.

Nor, for that matter, could Joe Public have ducked various displays or missed obtaining autographs from legends such as Jacky Ickx, Hans Stuck, Tom Kristensen, Allan McNish and Mark Webber.

All weekend fathers-and-sons abounded, thrilled by the sight of 900bhp monsters slamming through Eau Rouge or tip-toeing around La Source - yes, fans basked in total freedom of movement for three days.

Contrast that with the waiting F1 world: strict limits on paddock passes to "encourage" VIPs to use the Paddock Club for entertainment, bans on all forms of paddock display (the entire area "belongs" to F1's commercial rights holder), ticket prices aimed at 70-year-old Rolex watch owners, and, whisper it, heavy criticism should Audi perform to perfection. Add: no testing, home race, or technical freedom.

The bottom line is that if F1 intends attracting additional motor manufacturers to its grids - either as full operations or as engine suppliers - it needs a wholesale revamp, for its current business and political models were born at a time when it wished to rid itself of the pesky demands of such as Ford (Jaguar), BMW and Toyota, and Renault and Honda as they then competed.

Thus engine suppliers have no political sway in future engine regulations - imagine VW Group accepting that - nor do they receive commensurate slices of revenues, while the current commercial structure rewards a Red Bull over an Audi for equal results. Consider Winterkorn (or Piech?) accepting that.

F1 as it stands now is great - for independents and those who require a global entertainment and marketing platform, but little in the way of technical innovation. Any belief that F1 racing really improves the breed is pie-in-the-sky - certainly in comparison with the technical variety offered by the WEC.

Thus the only thing Audi must do is...well...you've guessed it. For now the Porsche family soap opera continues, and that, surely, will pre-occupy the board for years to come and must take precedence over any F1 decision.