The Weekly Grapevine

The 2007 Jigsaw

With a single statement regarding engine supply for 2007, Ferrari Managing Director Jean Todt may well have revealed that Michael Schumacher has absolutely no intention of retiring at season's end - whether he wins an eighth title or not.

Some background: Kimi Raikkonen, fed up with McLaren's inability to supply consistently reliable equipment, is widely tipped to be heading for Maranello at season's end, but only if the present incumbent, who is thought to have right of veto over his teammate, hangs up his red helmet.

Should the German, though, decide to stay on at Ferrari - as seems increasingly likely - and bombs Kimi as 2007 running mate, the Finn has two options: stay at McLaren and risk more of the same frustration, or move to Renault, where Fernando Alonso's present berth potentially awaits him.

'Potentially' because the French have renewed Giancarlo Fisichella's contract and is grooming present tester Heikki Kovalainen (crucially, Flavio Briatore protege) for a race seat.

And, as all mathematician will know, three into two does not go without fractions and infractions, so somebody would need to give.

Renault third driver Heikki Kovalainen © LAT

The 'give' is unlikely to be demanded from Kimi's camp: apart from the fact that the team has twice stated publicly that 'getting Kimi Raikkonen for 2007 is a priority', why would this championship-winning team turn down the services of a proven winner in favour of a rookie who failed to win last year's GP2 title?

So, should a Ferrari-spurned Kimi decide the blue/yellow of Renault offers greater chance of championship victory than the silver, then Renault would patently have to place his compatriot elsewhere.

Which is how Ferrari's present contract to supply engines to Red Bull Racing - valid until end-2007 - creeps into the frame. One solution to Renault's three-into-two dilemma may have been to supply engines to RBR, said to be extremely disillusioned with the (in)consistency of Ferrari's 058 engine as supplied to the drinks company-owned team, in return for providing a drive for Kovalainen, thus freeing up a seat for Raikkonen.

Complicated, yes, but not too long ago thought to be merely a question of agreeing some numbers. RBR's baby sister, Scuderia Toro Rosso, has proven itself extremely adept at engineering ways of inheriting Red Bull Racing's cast-off kit. Thus, went the logic, STR would inherit RBR's present RB2 chassis, complete with engine deal courtesy of Ferrari, freeing Dietrich Mateschitz's primary outfit to fit Renault's best power unit into an Adrian Newey-penned RB3 chassis.

Gaining Ferrari's approval had been considered to be a mere formality, if required at all.

The design genius, no stranger to the ways of Renault, was positively salivating at the prospects of again working with the French: exactly a decade ago he provided the engineering expertise which enabled Damon Hill's 1996 world crown in a Williams-Renault FW18. The previous year he had watched frustratingly as Schumacher used Renault power in a Benetton to vanquish Hill's similarly powered FW17.

And, of course, Hill's teammate in 1995 was a certain David Coulthard, widely expected to ably lead RBR's charge again next year.

So, it was all worked out - subject only to Schumacher not retiring: Kimi to Renault, Heikki to Red Bull as DC's teammate, Christian Klien demoted to tester for RBR, RB2 with Ferrari engines to STR and re-christened Scuderia Toro Rosso-Ferrari, McLaren to look elsewhere for an Alonso teammate...

Then, out of the blue, Todt last week announced that Ferrari had no intention of permitting the transfer of the engine deal from Red Bull Racing to Scuderia Toro Rosso. His stance was based on the simple premise that the contract had been signed with the former operation, not parent company Red Bull GmbH. Ferrari fully expected the signatory to work to the letter of the contract..

"If we have a contract we normally try to respect it, so we intend everybody to have the same attitude. We are intending to fulfil our contract and to supply them (Red Bull Racing) the engine for next year (2007)," he said.

Given that Ferrari would receive full payment for their engines regardless under which team's identity they were raced - both outfits' funding, after all, comes from the same cash-rich source - Todt must have reasons other than purely commercial for insisting that RBR honour every single word in the engine supply contract.

True, Todt's objective may be to hamstring Newey, whose designs, after all, ensured that Schumacher and Ferrari played second fiddle to Hill, Jacques Villeneuve and Mika Hakkinen (the latter twice), but, given that building a winning team takes three or four years (minimum), and the engine contract expires at season's end in any event, that is unlikely to be Todt's primary consideration.

Kimi Raikkonen © LAT

Could it be that, then, that if Todt can't have Raikkonen in a red suit - due to Schumacher hanging around for another year, at least - he would rather the Finn remained in silver and did not switch to the blue/yellow of Renault's racers, which Todt's red cars have been chasing this season and last, and are likely to remain Ferrari's greatest challengers primary opponents for an appreciable time to come, particularly if engine freezing units, is introduced sooner rather than later?

And so the dominoes fall: RBR don't have access to Renault, so are under no obligation to accommodate Kovalainen, whose contract is believed to require that he be given a cast-iron race drive by or via Renault in 2007, meaning no seat for Raikkonen, who then stays at a McLaren possibly handicapped by Silverstone-specification engines, or heads, as recent rumours increasingly suggest, for Toyota, the only team other than Ferrari, Renault or McLaren with access to the sort of stratospheric sums insisted upon by his management.

Either way he is unlikely to have the sort of machinery to regularly worry Michael at Ferrari, and all because Todt has insisted Ferrari's engines be supplied to Red Bull Racing, and not Red Bull GmbH.

But, forget not, Todt stated 'we normally try to respect it'. Quite what he meant by that is open to conjecture.

Todt's insistence upon the spirit and letter of the contract be 'respected', of course, places STR in a major predicament, for until a fortnight ago the team had planned upon inheriting RB2 and repainting the car in that ghastly, incoherent colour scheme.

Now, though, the team formerly known as Minardi, which has not built a brand new chassis since April 2005, faces three stark choices: run RBR's cast-off for another year, complete with rev-limited V10 engine (which impacts upon Cosworth), adapt RB2 to run, say, a Cosworth V8, or design a completely new car for what will be a single season, for entirely new regulations come into play for 2008.

None of these options are ideal, particularly as time is always ticking relentlessly away, and design work on any new chassis should have commenced at least eight weeks ago, whilst going the V10 'option' is likely to infuriate team bosses no end (and confuse punters) - particularly if the 'freeze' is introduced a year early.

Adapting RB2 to accommodate Cosworth power, then, seems the most sensible option, particularly as VW, an associate sponsor of both Red Bull teams and supplier of the bulk of the company's vehicle fleet worldwide, is said to investigating purchasing the Northampton-based engine company.

Such things, though, take time, a commodity STR has very little of at the moment if the team is to mount a reasonable challenge to even Midland next year. One thing is pretty certain, though: Ferrari is unlikely to receive sponsorship from Red Bull for many years to come.

Sharing a Grand Prix

Hockenheim, which has accumulated debts of close on €35m (EUR) in the four years since it lost its hallmark straights through being "Tilke'd" - and been subject to at least one in-depth financial investigation - this weekend faces crunch time.

The circuit is hopeful of striking a "timeshare" deal, whereby it would alternate the perceived privilege of hosting the German Grand Prix with the "Newburgring", with F1 czar Bernie Ecclestone. A proposal, which would see the latter facility, recently the venue for the European Grand Prix, stage the German round in 2007/9, with Hockenheim filling in in 2008/10.

The German flag © LAT

The European Grand Prix would then either be dropped, or accommodated elsewhere, although, with Italy also said to be losing its second annual Formula One race - the San Marino Grand Prix - it is difficult to foresee where the title could be slotted in. Possibly Valencia, although 'Mediterranean Grand Prix' has been mooted for the Spanish city's possible race.

Whatever, from Iberia back to Germany: both the country's circuits are said to have lost money of late, and quite how rotating the Grand Prix will alleviate the situation is not clear.

Circuits, after all, carry enormous overheads, with, as Silverstone has discovered on an almost annual basis, the upgrades required to meet the dual-stream demands of the FIA (predominantly safety- and sporting-orientated) and those of Formula One Management (infrastructure-related) able to make or break their holding companies.

Imagine, then, having to meet similar demands, but being able to amortise their costs against only 50% of gate takings.

In the 1970s, Silverstone and Brands Hatch alternately hosted the British Grand Prix and each faced just that dilemma, leading the latter circuit, then as now owned by a commercial entity, to forsake all rights to the GP simply to remain a viable entity.

Only when it was granted stand-alone dates - to the European Grand Prix in 1983/5 - did it return to the calendar, but, as can be seen, that, too, was alternated with (rather ironically) the Nurburgring, and Brands dropped off F1's radar until it was briefly mentioned after Nicola Foulson struck an expensive but ultimately aborted deal with Ecclestone in the late 1990s.

Given that Grand Prix hosting fees have risen out of all proportion when compared with the annual inflation rates of host countries (which country, bar Brazil, suffers 10% annual cost of living increases?), and that Grand Prix timesharing was proven to be uneconomical in the 1970s, just why should it make commercial sense in the 21st Century?

Better, surely, to drop Hockenheim, which has, since Hermann Tilke took his scissors to its layout, no redeeming features or unique selling points, and concentrate on sustaining the Nurburgring. Then, the country which invented the automobile, may boast one profitable circuit.