The Weekly Grapevine

No peace in sight

This year's French Grand Prix was remarkable. Not, though, for Michael Schumacher's easy victory; not for Fernando Alonso's valiant run to second; not for Rogers Waters' full rendition of Pink Floyd's light and sound classic 'Dark Side of the Moon on the Friday preceding the event; nor even for the fact that the event celebrated 100 years of Grand Prix racing.

What caused that rather tedious event held on a bland circuit in backwater France to pass into the history books was paper - lots of it. About, of all things, the engine 'freeze' proposed by Max Mosley and fought every inch of the way by the engine companies.

So much paper was floating about that Renault, despite having to fight from third on the grid before their adoring home crowd (and thousands of employees), saw fit to issue a press release distancing itself from statements made by the Grand Prix Manufacturers' Association - of which the French company is a paid-up member - slap-bang in the middle of the race.

That weekend every statement made by the sport's governing, the FIA, was met with an equal but opposite paper byte from the GPMA (representing BMW, Honda, Mercedes-Benz and Toyota, plus, somewhat distantly, Renault), and it seemed, Sunday afternoon's on-track battle went ahead as a smokescreen intended to camouflage the real battle of wits: the tussle between Max Mosley on the one hand and the quintet (quartet?) of motor manufacturer representatives on the other.

At stake was (is) the future of Formula One: should the sport be allowed, as it has in the past, run amok amidst uncontrolled budgets, or has the time come to rein in the spending via restrictions on engine technologies with a secondary focus on 'greener' technologies? Some aver that something bigger - namely, future control of the sport - is actually at stake.

Ferrari V8 © XPB/LAT

All this, though, is well known and has been covered by this site on a regular basis since before the turn of the year. References to the French Grand Prix weekend have, though, been included in order to illustrate a) the differences and acrimony between the warring factions, and b) the determination of both parties to propagate their 'truths'.

Deadlines imposed by the FIA in France came and went; then, two weeks later, on Hockenheim Saturday, the pressure on the manufacturers was ratcheted up a notch or three via a letter from Mosley, who wrote to that teams that "...it is now clear that we must stop discussing engine regulations and focus entirely on complying with those we already have. This means that the engines used in 2008 will be those in use on June 1 2006."

The war, thus, was far from over, and according to London's the Sunday Times, the GPMA was planning an exit from the sport come the end of the present Concorde Agreement (end-2007).

Saliently, they have to date collectively failed to sign any form of agreement binding them to the sport after that date, save for a Memorandum of Understanding allegedly agreed in May in Spain, and, apart from submitting entries for the 2008-2012 period - how binding these are, though, could soon be tested in a British court of law - have announced no further commitments to Formula One.

According to the Sunday Times report, Burkhard Goeschel, BMW's soon-to-retire main board member responsible for engineering, procurement and motorsport and presently chair of the GPMA, asked why "any manufacturer (would) want to invest in a sport where they can't showcase their technical expertise?", whilst Otmar Szafnauer, vice-president of Honda Racing Development, is quoted as saying, "We are at a very important milestone for F1, a situation I have not seen in the sport before. Freezing technology is anathema to motor sport."

In summarizing the situation, the newspaper encapsulated GPMA sentiments in a paragraph credited to a unnamed source:

"In essence we are being asked to put the competitive position on hold. At the moment Renault and Ferrari have a slight advantage on engine power — so does everyone have to accept their superiority for three years? It's ridiculous."

Then, immediately after last weekend's Hungarian Grand Prix - a period, mainly and thankfully, devoid of engine overkill - it became known that Mosley planned to meet Professor Dr Goeschel and the Bavarian company's in-house legal counsel, Dr Juergen Ruel, in Nice on the day after the race. Why Nice? Simply as Mosley divides his time between Monaco, Paris and London, and the French harbour city offers convenient meeting points well hidden from F1's paparazzi.

Then, on Monday afternoon at 16:39 CET, an email headed 'The Future of Formula One' hit in-trays around the world. It was a missive from the FIA's communications department outlining five primary areas of agreement decided upon during the meeting, namely:

• Engines will be stabilised from the 2006 Chinese Grand Prix. These will be the only engines used from and including the 2007 season.

Renault V8 © XPB/LAT

• This means that no further developments of the engines will be allowed other than retuning for the 19,000 rpm limit, to be agreed in each case with the FIA under the terms of the 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations.

• From 2009 the Formula One Technical Regulations will include means to promote fuel efficiency including energy recovery and re-use. All relevant regulations for 2009 will be published no later than December 31, 2006.

• GPMA has set up a working group to examine possible future rules for Formula One which will allow a performance advantage to be obtained by means of more efficient use of available energy. These future regulations may include changes to current power units. The FIA and other engine suppliers will join this group.

• As a result of the above the FIA and GPMA are now in full agreement about the future of the FIA Formula One World Championship.

Given the open acrimony said to exist between the parties, most in Formula One awaited some form of communication - whether open disagreement with the contents of the FIA's release or substantiation of the contents (possible but improbable, particularly in view of the various anti feelings as outlined above) - from the GPMA's London office.

The manufacturer association, though, emitted only deafening silence, although a GPMA spokesperson did indicate that progress of sorts had been made. But, no written statement, and, tellingly, no support for Goeschel followed; in fact, nothing at all was said or published, save for said verbal comment.

"Talks are moving in the right direction, but it has not yet been agreed by everybody. The five GPMA members are currently discussing the points from this morning's meeting and will make a decision shortly," the spokesperson told autosport.com.

It is thus unclear whether Goeschel actually had an official mandate from all GPMA members to negotiate with Mosley, and, if, crucially, the German was empowered to reach any form of binding 'agreement' with the regulatory body on their behalf, one which would lead to the sort of definitive email distributed by the FIA. After all, to a manufacturer, the GPMA's membership has continuously rallied against the concept of engine 'stabilisation' ('freezing').

And, did Renault, which distanced itself from the manufacturer body in Magny-Cours and has made no clear moves towards realignment since, wish to be included in the outlined 'peace' deal?

Thus, was any form of binding agreement (on GPMA members) actually achieved at all, and if so, why the sudden about-turn by the manufacturer body?

Yes, Mosley has legendary powers of persuasion coupled with a laser-sharp legal mind and dogmatic belief in the overall correctness of his own visions, but would they, GPMA members, suddenly accept what appears to be total capitulation on their behalf by Goeschel and a corporate lawyer, with a milligram of concession (okay, two) in return?

And, yes, the FIA does 'own' the Formula One World Championship, and can, thus, administer it as it sees fit, but not in breach of its own regulations, or those imposed upon by the European Union and other governmental institutions the world over.

FIA President Max Mosley © XPB/LAT

And, yes, Mosley, a former patent law barrister, in the past somehow or other dissuaded the likes of Honda and Mercedes from dragging the governing body to arbitration over early introduction of the present 2400cc V8 engines (in breach of existing Concorde Agreement articles), and to accept these dumbed-down engines two years earlier. But to achieve the stated about-turn within less than 24 hours would seem to be a bridge too far.

And, what are the concessions referred to? As outlined, engines will now, according to the release, "be stabilised from the 2006 Chinese Grand Prix", rather than to 2006 British Grand Prix specification as previously decreed by the FIA, and a fuel-efficiency formula will be introduced from 2009 in place of 2011 - which would in any event drive up development costs horrifically in the short- and medium-terms. Which is exactly what Mosley attempted to prevent when first he mooted the concept of 'freezes'.

Under the originally planned 2008-2012 technical regulations, regenerative energy was to be introduced in 2009, with alternate-energy engines coming in for 2011. What caused Mosley to change his mind after heavily pushing the former technology remains unexplained.

Was lasting engine peace actually achieved in Nice? Based upon the GPMA spokesman's comments, apparently not.

There exists no doubt, though, that some form of agreement was reached with Goeschel, but given that his vision of fuel-efficiency is H-powered (he approved BMW's development of hydrogen-powered cars), whilst Mercedes-Benz is chasing the bio-diesel route and Toyota and Honda are in full production with petro-electro hybrids (with Renault apparently sitting on the alternate energy fence), full agreement amongst all members will hardly be the work of a moment.

And time is the one component which is seriously in short supply at the moment, particularly as the 'agreement' would appear to have divided the GPMA straight down the centre.

Further, any 'agreement' struck would, despite Ferrari being very much outside the GPMA, apply equally to the Italian team, yet Maranello seems not to have been consulted on the minor question of bio-diesels or steam-powered cars or whatever.

And surely, Ferrari's agreement to alternate-energy sources is at least as vital to the 'Future of Formula One' as the acquiescence of a retiring motor company executive and his counsel, particularly as the company partly funds its racing activities from profits generated by the manufacture of 4000 ultra-high performance petrol engines per annum.

Returning, though, to GPMA matters, sources indicate that BMW (logically) and Toyota (rather surprisingly) alone are in agreement with Goeschel's 'agreement' with Mosley; Mercedes (not surprisingly) and Honda (ditto) are said to be totally anti any form of 'freeze', whilst Renault is seemingly squatting on the divide (again).

All of which could, of course, suit Mosley perfectly...

However, what logic in the much-vaunted 2400cc V8 engines - whose introduction was fast-tracked at enormous engineering and political cost - being replaced by alternative-energy units just one year into any 2008-2012 agreement as may be constituted out of whatever commercial, sporting and technical accords are reached before the kick-in date?

Toyota V8 © XPB/LAT

The present engines were, remember, proposed for 2008 introduction, which date was then brought forward (on safety grounds) to 2007, then to 2006 (on cost grounds). Under the Nice 'agreement' they will be raced for just one year into their originally-targeted life, and three years into their actual lifespan. What cost-saving is that?

Further, what on earth would drive three or four highly respected automotive brands to accept that their present technology will be perceived as being their best efforts for up three years and possibly 60 Grands Prix?

Just consider last Sunday: the race showed without a shadow of doubt that Michael Schumacher's Ferrari, despite displaying demonstrably poor traction out of the vital last turn, was able to power away from Pedro de la Rosa's Mercedes-powered McLaren down the (shortish) straight which followed.

Now extend that comparison across the board, across three seasons, and question whether any straight-thinking motor company boss would happily commit millions per annum to have the company's image pegged at that level for 60 Grands Prix. Could he be blamed for deciding that his company walk away from the sport post-haste?

But, as always in matters Formula One, there seems to be a twist in the tale: according to well-placed sources, there is, at this point in time, but one agreement which legally binds the GPMA, and that is the agreement struck during its formation. It requires all members to remain within the organization and vote en bloc with a common voice, with draconian financial penalties - some believe these to be limitless - due to the membership by the defaulter in the event of any breach.

That agreement is said to expire on 1 September - three weeks hence, to the day.

Could it be, then, that any agreement struck in Nice on Monday has a shelf-life of just 21 days? On that basis there seems little doubt that further correspondence headed 'The Future of Formula One' can be expected sooner rather than later.

Unless, of course, the sport takes 'Dark Side of the Moon', which includes some apposite verses in 'Time' and 'Money', totally to heart...