The Weekly Grapevine

Revving Up

In May, during the Monaco Grand Prix weekend, a meeting of senior Formula One managers, to wit those directly responsible for engines, was called at rather short notice by the FIA's Technical Delegate, Charlie Whiting.

The affected team principals - fearing it was a tactic aimed at bringing team personnel face-to-face with the president of the sport's governing body (thus, according to one, providing a perfect photo opportunity a week ahead of a confidence vote over allegations over his private life at World Motor Sport Council level) - politely declined the invitation on behalf of their staff.

'In order for us all to come well prepared and with the correct representation we would kindly ask you to distribute an agenda and allow ample (two weeks) preparation time prior to the meeting. Therefore we request you defer the meeting to sometime in the near future,' the sextet replied collectively in a letter, seen by this column, to Whiting.

Geoff Willis and Charlie Whiting © LAT

As no meeting was held in this regard then or since - certainly not one with FIA presence - exactly what Whiting and Mosley (had he intended attending, which the team bosses believed to have been the case) wished to table is unknown, although various sources indicated they believed the FIA planned to 'thaw' engine homologation from as early as 2011.

Given that the governing body originally aimed to 'freeze' engines until 2017 (at the very time every motor manufacturer across the industry is seeking radical propulsion solutions, which, by their nature, encompass alternate technology ...) but eventually agreed, after pleas from the teams, to accept five years these suggestions were, to say the least, bewildering.

Particularly as teams had downsized their F1 engine departments accordingly. Therefore the letter concluded with: 'We look forward to progressing the Engine Regulations Process as set out at our meeting held in Paris on 11 January 2008' - by which teams would discuss a replacement engine formula during 2009, and fine-tune proposals by the end of 2010 for implementation in 2013.

During that Monaco weekend three manufacturer representatives made clear they had been forced to either lay off or transfer staff as a result of the 'freeze', and redeploying them in F1 was not a matter of a moment.

Equally, discussions in Canada a fortnight later would not be mutually convenient, because, as one put it, "we seldom take engine people to fly-aways in this era of cost-cutting ..."

"Rules stability and transparency is what we crave above all else," said another team boss, who repeated this desire when it was put to four weeks later, during the French Grand Prix weekend, that the FIA had proposed that the teams receive a substantially larger share of the sport's annual revenues - up from 50 percent to approximately 75 percent, or, on average, around $25m per team more.

Asked in Magny-Cours whether there had been any further discussions about engines, he replied, "No, and I doubt whether there will be. I believe it was all a smokescreen a week before (Max) Mosley's vote ..."

Later that weekend the agenda to the next World Motor Sport Council meeting - to be held on the Wednesday following the grand prix - was leaked, and whilst approval of the 2009 technical regulations and an entry fee increase plus a cost recovery programme totalling close on 500,000 euros per team were tabled, not a word on changes to the engine regulations was listed.

So, it seemed, said team principal had his wish, particularly when the meeting's decisions were published, for a key point was 'a review of the governance of F1'.

The FIA motorhome © LAT

However, the same paragraph stated 'The FIA will enter into a wide-ranging consultation with the Formula One teams to examine plans for improved efficiency, including new technical regulations for the Championship.'

(As a matter of record, the 2009 regulations and cost recovery programme were not approved, certainly not if the same list of decisions is any indication, yet the regulations were this week past published on the FIA's website ...)

Not, though, for the first time in recent F1 history has a team boss been half right (and, possibly even dead wrong), for in Silverstone a letter was distributed under Mosley's signature. In it the FIA president stated it was 'unacceptable' for companies facing difficult market conditions to 'employ up to 1000 people to put two cars on the grid', and slated the sport's profligate use of fuel.

The letter invited teams to suggest ways of reducing expenditure, improving fuel consumption by 50 percent by 2015, improving racing through rules which encourage aerodynamic efficiency, achieving a three-fold increase in KERS performance, and increased use of variable aerodynamics were just some of the suggestions made.

Saliently, lap times were to be kept at current levels - seems the governing body has accepted that a need for speed does exist amongst fans and teams alike - whilst 'many new energy-efficient technologies' should be employed, and all this through regulations 'which come into force no later than 2011.' In a nutshell, then, the compete antithesis of that agreed exactly six months ago ...

Mosley's letter concluded with (honorary) 'Professor Goeschel (formerly of BMW, but who now heads up the Formula One Manufacturers' Advisory Committee and with whom Mosley agreed a truce on behalf of the F1 teams way back in August 2006, but whose latest day job is manager at automotive component and consultancy Magna Steyr in Austria) has kindly agreed to hold meetings of FOMAC to discuss these issues directly with the manufacturers.' (Our brackets throughout)

Note, though, the use of 'manufacturers' not 'teams' in a letter signed by a man extremely well versed in the nuances of the English language, suggesting the likes of Williams, Red Bull Racing, Scuderia Toro Rosso and Force India - the very independent teams Mosley not so long vowed to place on the protected species list - would be excluded from this major decision-taking process.

At Silverstone team bosses and technical directors alike were reluctant to remark in depth on the letter, not out of fear as is too often the case, but simply because they believed it arrived rather unexpectedly (although the decisions of the WMSC indicated the FIA was thinking along these lines), and that they needed to consult more fully with their executives before commenting.

All of which is fair enough, for they had requested (a very reasonable) two weeks notice of any engine meeting, and, with a deadline for proposals enjoying at least majority-of-teams support of 3 October 2008 set by Mosley, it's fair to say they were somewhat miffed and far from optimistic about the 'request'.

Bernie Ecclestone and Burkhard Goschel © XPB

Of course, the FIA can point to the fact that Goeschel was consulted, but that is to obfuscate the truth in various areas, for at least one team principal does not at all recognise Goeschel's 'status' as head of FOMAC, with a further two being totally ambivalent to his involvement. The rest weren't asked ...

"He (Goeschel) works for a component manufacturer and does not represent us," said one team boss rather agitatedly on race day at Silverstone, becoming even more so when advised Goeschel had, in a three-way interview which included Mosley and been published that day (a day ahead of Mosley's court case against the News of the World) by the German newspaper Die Welt, effectively stated the manufacturer collective had forgiven Mosley for his recent proclivities.

FOMAC, the team principal went on, was a 'committee' instigated by the FIA and certainly did not represent all competing motor manufacturers, and therefore had no right to speak on behalf of the team collective.

He did, though, concede that the engine rules needed to be changed, if only because the present regulations were counter to the technological challenges which should be inherent in the sport.

That the sport does need to do more than merely be seen to be green - and that, frankly, should include the FIA flogging off the executive jet it purchased from BC Ecclestone Esq. when he wished to upgrade - is a given, but whether the route chosen by the FIA to achieve this aim is the correct one is another question entirely.

First, in certain circles there seems to be low tolerance of Goeschel's involvement in any regulatory process for, forget not, he was not uninvolved in framing the present rules - which cost an absolute fortune over two years, yet seem ready for the skip within the same time frame. Plus, after that Die Welt interview he is perceived as a Mosley disciple, and not a manufacturer spokesperson ...

Despite being totally opposed to the present engine regulations, the teams were forced to accept these and redeployed staff accordingly - in many instances at great personal and professional cost, for the better ones found alternate employment, often outside the geographic area and mostly outside the industry.

And for totally understandable reasons, given the nature of these retrenchments; now, though, teams will be forced to reverse the entire process less than a year later, doing absolute wonders for industrial and corporate relations.

Martin Whitmarsh, John Howett, Sir Frank Williams, and Ross Brawn © LAT

Finally, based on precedent, teams are loathe to frame recommendations, only to see these overruled by the governing body simply because they don't fit the mould, particularly where teams are required to supply to fully competitive drive trains (engine, gearbox, KERS unit) to independent teams for 2m euros (£1.6m) per season as suggested in Mosley's letter.

"It would make sense if the unit cost 1.8m euros, but it obviously doesn't (cost that)," said a team boss in Silverstone.

The big question is whether any of the other suggestions make sense, and if so, whether they can at all be implemented by 2011 - in breach of the FIA's own regulations introduced at great cost and with massive fanfare.

That could well prove to be the hardest sell of a year already conspicuous for its hard sells ...