The Weekly Grapevine

Williams, Toyota and Lexus

That Williams are about to sign a two-year deal with a one-year extension option with Toyota is no surprise, and absolutely no disrespect is meant to Cosworth with that statement, either, for the Northampton company has produced a jewel of an engine in the CA2006, which is a unit truly worthy of a world-class chassis.

Ultra high-revving, compact and produced at about quarter the price of work's engines, the Alex Hitzinger-designed V8 had powered Williams' FW28 chassis to fastest laps and front-row starts, whilst the only thing which kept Mark Webber off the Monaco podium was the failure of a (non-Cosworth) heat shield. So why change from what you know to what you don't?

Simply because Sir Frank is a thoroughly canny fellow, one whose team won no less than nine world championships through their ability to think outside of the box, and he is hoping that Toyota can deliver a thoroughly useful component Cosworth is unable to supply, at least in its present incarnation.

That component is commercial support, explaining why this archetypal racer went straight over the heads of Toyota Motorsport GmbH in Cologne and negotiated directly with Toyota in Tokyo.

It is no secret that Formula One engine technology will in future be somewhat 'dumbed-down', that bores and strokes and centres-of-gravity and materials and camshaft profiles and electronics and induction systems will become progressively standardized, leading to very little (or even no) disparity in performance, reliability or characteristics.

Sir Frank Williams © LAT

So, with little 'racing' difference between engines, peripheral factors such as cost and/or other benefits come into play.

Engine budgets are, of course, closely guarded secrets, but, assuming that Williams pays for his Toyota engines - and all indications are that he is, if only to give the arrangement a customer semblance so as not to tread on the eight thousand toes inhabiting TMG - then there exists no fundamental reason why Toyota Motor - whether as Toyota, Lexus, Scion, Daihatsu, Hino or Subaru, which are some of the better-known brands falling within its ambit - cannot subsidize the deal.

Or, for that matter, pay Williams a hefty slice of yen, heftier even than the lease deal, to run TMC's chosen livery on the engine cover. Which of six brands, though?

By discounting the non-starters and least-likely runners, the choice boils down to Toyota or Lexus.

The former is already in Formula One, and little promotional good would be served by a Toyota TF107 beating a Williams-Toyota FW29 (or vice versa). For that matter, real commercial harm could be done to the image of Toyota's Formula One chassis (and, by extension, the brand's road cars) should a privateer British chassis regularly beat the living daylights out of Cologne's products.

Although such a trashing is unlikely, it remains a possibility, one TMC's board must have considered before giving Williams-Toyota the green light.

So, given that the deal appears to be done and is awaiting only the official signature and a high-profile announcement - said to be due in Canada - it would be utterly remiss to leave 'Lexus' out of the equation. The 'L' badge is very much tied to North America, for that (Southern California, in fact) is where the brand was born in the late nineties, having been dreamed up by Yukiyasu Togo, the executive in charge of Toyota Motor Sales, USA.

Bluntly, if Toyota is accepted as being an eastern brand, then Lexus conjures up images of California and Texas. All of which could explain why Lexus livery, and not Toyota's 'T', is likely to feature on the FW29's engine cover. Not, though, because TMC is overly keen sell its Formula One participation in the US, but because its long-term aspirations for the brand are for it to shed its apple-pie and maple syrup image and go for the big cakes in the bakery: Mercedes, BMW and, to a lesser but still highly relevant degree, Audi.

And, if in the process of going head-to-head with Germany's prestige brands, both of whom, forget not, are perceived as partnering independent teams, Williams-Lexus topples TMG's best, so what? After all, in TMC's core competitive environment (car sales) Toyota Avensis and Lexus IS250; Toyota Camry and Lexus GS300 go head-to-head, too, and are stronger for it.

Of course, TMG won't be happy being beaten by Williams, but, dress yourself in Toyota Red: in the final analysis, is it better to be beaten by a Williams-Toyota or a Williams-Honda - for that was allegedly Sir Frank's other option.

And, going with Williams gives Toyota a say, albeit an indirect one, on the revised Formula One Commission, for, having been snubbed by the sport's controlling body, the FIA, and then seen arch-enemy Honda called to the commission, Toyota, like the McLaren-Mercedes partnership, was left in the Parisian cold.

True, Toyota may have had input into the commission via Midland F1 - and herein lies the crux of the matter. Midland have had two cracks at the Toyota whip, and failed dismally each time, with this season being a plain embarrassment, what with those excruciatingly ugly Toro Rossos outperforming the MF1-Toyota entries virtually at every turn.

Christijan Albers and Alex Shnaider © LAT

That MF1 failed to be called to the commission despite representing Canada and/or Russia speaks volumes for the team's (lack of) credibility in the paddock, and, thus, Toyota was totally unrepresented in Paris. Now it will be, and by one of the canniest foxes in the business.

Where does all this, though, leave Midland? Possibly deep in the mire, for a sale to a group of Dutch investors - which includes the father of present MF1 driver Christijan Albers' partner - is said to be pending, and, if the deal was conditional upon a longer term engine arrangement, the presence of Messrs Kolles and Shnaider in the paddock seems set to continue for a while yet.

Of all the parties affected, Cosworth would appear to be worse hit, for the company did all that was required, and was on a mission to make Williams' possible defection as hard a decision as possible. But, at the end of the day, like last year when it lost Red Bull to Ferrari, it faced the equivalent of a street fight armed only with a butter knife. There will be the doomsayers who predict the end of Cosworth, but those characters said the same about the company a year ago.

Ironically, a return to a partnership with Red Bull seems likely, for the bovine and the horse have seldom produced other than biological misfits, but the real pity (for the engine company) is that it was unable to hold onto Williams for 2007 whilst simultaneously servicing RBR. Not only was such a duel-stream feasible, but, according to high-level sources within the company, the price per team for a full year's supply of engine would have reduced by close to 50% per outfit.

But, Sir Frank has a responsibility towards the 600 or so folk working in the company bearing his name, and he (and partner Patrick Head) chose what they saw as the long-term option. The impact of their decisions upon Cosworth, TMG or MF1 was incidental to their evaluation process, and quite right, too.

The power of the GPDA

Has the Grand Prix Drivers' Association degenerated into a toothless lapdog hardly able to bark let alone bite; mutated into a purposeless body hiding behind a string of fancy words? Where are the activists of yore, the drivers who fearlessly spoke out against whatever injustices reared their heads?

Yes, those old, bold drivers campaigned primarily for improved safety standards, but when situations needed pulling into line, they went about their business with a seriousness long overtaken by lamentable political correctness.

Consider Indianapolis last year. Where, oh where, was the GPDA then? Should not the president of the time have stood up against the forces ranged against the drivers of Michelin-supplied cars? After all, if the body's self-confessed primary focus be driver safety, that surely was the time to consider the membership.

Consider the Yuji Ide affair. Yes, the Japanese driver over-drove and underperformed, and he may well have represented a very real danger to his peers, but should his fate really have been decided by the Permanent Bureau of the FIA's Formula One Commission without input from either the driver concerned or the GPDA?

Then, when Michael Schumacher, the president, was subsequently asked about the affair, he chose not to comment - in either his personal or official capacities. Why?

Consider the build-up to the Spanish Grand Prix. David Coulthard made, by all accounts, an impassioned plea for improved safety standards during testing to the Sporting Working Group. Then, after McLaren boss Ron Dennis (rather eloquently) countered the Scot's arguments, the matter simply faded away, all of which has all the hallmarks of a rather vaguely thought-through campaign in the first place. Which it probably was.

David Coulthard © LAT

Consider "Rascassegate". GPDA members, as fellow drivers, have every right to demand answers from Schumacher, but, before the race was even 10 minutes old, Coulthard responded to a question about possible GPDA action against the transgressor with: "... just to remind you all, the main role of the GPDA is for driver safety and track safety and not to be involved in political issues like stewards decisions and the two are completely separate.

"And, irrespective of any individual driver's view on Michael's actions yesterday, he does remain one of the most active members on track safety and one of the main funders of the GPDA over the years. So you have to separate the two things."

Why?

Is the current crop of drivers so cash-strapped that they are prepared to overlook Schumacher's rather suspicious-looking indiscretions, which severely hampered at least two of their number, merely because he contributes more than most? Strange message that sends out to the world: pay into GPDA coffers, and be granted immunity from investigation from your peers, all in the name of political correctness. Got to be a message in there for you, Mr Ide.

But, ultimately, let us assume that the body eventually gets around to asking (note: not demanding) for explanations from Schumacher, what if he refuses? Do they throw him out? Request the FIA to issue a ban? Ask him to resign as either member or president or both?

Proceedings at Silverstone this weekend will indicate whether the GPDA deserves to be taken seriously, and not only by what action is taken against Schumacher - he may well persuade them of his total innocence should push comes to shove - but by the manner of the inquest, if any.