The Weekly Grapevine

Of Names and Chassis

Although Aguri Suzuki exclusively confirmed to this column in Brazil that his tiny Super Aguri team's SA07 chassis was ready for the wind tunnel, a very strong chance exists that the design will remain unraced.

This situation may come to pass not, though, as a result of any shortcomings in either the engineering or finance departments - although, for obvious reasons, both operate under rather large constraints - but through the plans of another team, an operation whose only relationship with Formula One's newest outfit is that both are listed at the very bottom of the 2006 constructors' championship points' log.

And, Super Aguri is not the only team whose future chassis options are affected by the recent take-over of the Midland team by Spyker, the Dutch-based maker of way-out cars. Scuderia Toro Rosso, too, could be affected should the latest rumours surrounding Spyker mutate to fact.

When Alex Shnaider's Midland Group bought Eddie Jordan's struggling team in early 2005, he was required in terms of the deal (and entries already submitted to the FIA) to operate under 'Jordan Grand Prix' for that season. Then, for this year, a change of name request was submitted and agreed to by all teams, although, with the sport's regulations permitting a title change every five years, such a request was in any event academic. Hence Midland MF1, operating as MF1, took to the grids this year.

The 2006 Midland MF1 launch © XPB/LAT

Such concession does not, though, automatically apply to new owners Spyker, who now, of course, wish to name the team after their resurrected automotive brand, for the reasons outlined. Therefore, after having announced its acquisition of MF1 at Monza during the Italian Grand Prix weekend, Spyker temporarily circumvented this irritation by assuming title sponsorship rights, consequently naming its re-coloured (to orange) team 'Spyker MF1'.

All well and good for China, Japan and Brazil, but with a new dawn breaking for the team and bringing with it Ferrari engines for the foreseeable future, Spyker's honchos have plans to re-brand the team 'Spyker-Ferrari'. Not only would such an exercise consign 'MF1', with its DIY connotations, to the scrap heap, but the move would also clear the way for the team to be named after its new owners. All of which makes perfect sense.

Except, of course, that the operation formerly known as Jordan has used up its allocation of name changes, and thus requires the unanimous approval of all other competing teams - ten including Aguri and STR, both of whom had previously petitioned the FIA and all teams, including MF1, for permission to use 2006 chassis acquired from other sources in 2007.

Super Aguri, as a Honda satellite, had hoped to persuade Honda Racing to sell it the rights to the RA-106 chassis, which, as Jenson Button's win in Hungary (and Brazilian podium) proved, lacks for little. Such a move would have technically and financially aided the minnow team, operating out of modest, rented facilities, enormously in its crucial second season - which is acknowledged by all in the sport to be way tougher than the first.

Red Bull Racing sister STR had hoped for a hand-me-down chassis design, which, given that next year the latter team will likely be powered by the Ferrari engines used this year by the former (who have inked a deal with Renault), is nothing other than an extremely logical aspiration.

But, again, an RB02 powered by the same Ferrari engines as procured by Spyker could present a formidable challenge to a back-marking outfit, particularly given STR's sugar-daddy Red Bull funding and part-owner Gerhard Berger's undoubted racing, management and political nous, so the deal was scuppered, again allegedly by MF1, who used the opportunity to push for a redistribution of the sport's revenues, when put to the vote.

MF1, of course, had fairly valid reasons for withholding their sanction, for in F1 the first rule is the seeking of every unfair advantage going, in the process maximizing all opportunities for self, and the team played its cards pretty well at the time. Now, though, the Sparco lace-up is on the other foot, and Spyker MF1 is the one seeking dispensation.

Whilst it is true that a mere change of name by MF1 does not impact upon Aguri/STR (thereby implying that sheer spite would be the teams' only motivations for withholding agreement thereto), such a change of name would, in fact, clear the way for Spyker's marketing department to sell title rights, thus increasing the size of the team's war chest.

The Spyker MF1 nosecone © XPB/LAT

In fact, so lucrative could the naming sponsorship turn out to be, that it could readily exceed the sum MF1 hoped to realize when pushing for a redistribution of F1's wealth, with the Ferrari engine deal hardly likely to be a hindrance in this regard.

So, when (if) Spyker's request for a name change comes up before the Formula One Commission, the chances are fair to strong that Aguri and STR will block the request. Ferrari, whose 5% shareholder Mubadala Investments holds a 17% interest in Spyker, may 'lean' on STR/Red Bull to acquiesce to the request via that route in order to have peace within its 'engine family', but Super Aguri/Honda are another matter.

Selling the intellectual rights to its RA-106 chassis is obviously a tidy little earner for the latter, whilst the benefits of such a deal to the former need no amplification - and, forget not, Honda's positive vote is a requirement if Spyker is to implement its hoped-for re-branding programme.

And so the scene is being set for Super Aguri and STR to run hand-me-downs next year. Spyker, though, needs to initiate its request PDQ, for Aguri is a long way down the road towards finalizing its 2007 design. Should its chassis be complete prior to being asked to vote, it may just refuse permission for pretty much the same reasons as did MF1 refuse Aguri's original request...

Either way, though, these fun and games apply only to next year: come F1's new dawn in 2008 customer chassis are permitted by the regulations, whilst a) Spyker will likely be permitted a name change under the new dispensation, and b) if not, unanimous agreement will in any event no longer be required for such matters.

A lesson on pay-per-view F1

With news trickling out of pay-per-view TV and subscription channel deals struck between Bernie Ecclestone and various broadcasters (notably in Portugal and Finland, with further such contracts on the horizon), the sport - for which read teams and sponsors - could do well to heed the effects of such arrangements in South Africa since 2000.

Before that time, the country's national broadcaster carried free-to-air footage of all qualifying sessions races in conjunction with, first, the BBC, then, ITV. True, transmissions were interrupted by commercial breaks - which, rather miraculously, never affected the SABC's rugby and football coverage - but at least fans in the country at the tip of the only F1-free continent on the planet, received broadcasts of their favourite sport live.

For 2001 the situation changed: initially for the better, believe it or not. Unable to afford ever-increasing rights' fees, SABC agreed to a dual-stream deal with subscription satellite broadcaster DsTV whereby the original channel continued its transmissions unchanged, with the latter broadcasting into Africa whilst enabling its local subscribers to receive commercial break-free transmissions.

Both stations carried F1's international feed voiced by ITV's team of James Allen and Martin Brundle, who in turn were backed up by the British broadcaster's team of experts, and both SABC and DsTV featured their own presenter panels.

TV camera © XPB/LAT

According to sources, viewership immediately leaped 20%, with the vast majority of parties enjoying win-win situations: SABC enjoyed reduced rights' fees, fans without satellite receivers continued receiving free-to-air broadcasts subsidized by advertisers whilst those with dishes enjoyed commercial-free broadcasts, and a whole raft of African fans were exposed to a Grand Prix for the first time.

There was, however, a downside: SABC's commercial income dropped dramatically as the corporation's wealthier viewers, those with dishes, migrated to DsTV. Thus, when the contracts expired at end-2004, SABC declined Ecclestone's renewal advances.

After fraught negotiations, the state broadcaster signed up for a delayed (to Sunday midnight) transmission package - granted, it was said, on extremely favourable (or even free) terms by the F1 czar in order to satisfy clauses within the Concorde Agreement, which demand that free-to-air television must be provided where pay-per-view alternatives exist.

Viewership immediately dropped as casual viewers - the lifeblood of television broadcasts - without dishes failed to convert to the subscriber service, then missed the midnight broadcasts mainly due to commitments not unrelated to normal rest and recreation requirements.

In order to pay for their by-now exclusive live rights, DsTV simultaneously introduced commercials - albeit of a squeeze-back variety (whereby screens are split to simultaneously incorporate action and commercial messages) - thus impacting upon the viewer experience. Reduced viewerships on both channels, though, meant that advertising rates dropped commensurately.

According to informed sources in South Africa, audience ratings dropped over 50% on the highs experienced in 2001/2 - at a time when worldwide F1 viewerships are on the increase.

If similar decreases are experienced as and when other territories adopt pay-per-view models - as proven by Ecclestone's digital service, which failed rather expensively, viewers vote with their feet when faced with paying for sport broadcasts - the effects on teams' finances and F1's overall revenue streams could prove disastrous.

South Africa is, fortunately for F1, a minor market (with no local heroes, unlike Portugal and Finland), and as such the switch to subscriber broadcasts had little or no effect on the overall scheme of things.

Free-to-air broadcasts contributed to F1's rise from obscure sport to one enjoying global popularity; pay-per-view television deals struck for the sake of a few short-term dollars by the commercial rights' holder without offering a simultaneous free alternative - particularly at a time when sport broadcasts are under attack from ever-shifting media landscapes - could well undo all that in a flash.