The Weekly Grapevine

Last weekend the manufacturers' division of the World Touring Car Championship was settled (in favour of SEAT), with the outcome of the drivers' to be decided within three weeks in Macau. This weekend Formula One will crown its winning driver and constructor in Brazil, while the World Rally Championship's two categories, too, could be decided in Japan.

All in, the world's motorsport headlines should be shrieking news about the closeness of the FIA's trio of premier championships, the specialist media packed with permutations and analyses of the respective seasons to date.

Yet, inserting 'FIA' into Google shows nothing of the sort. In fact, when not referring to the 'Financial Intermediaries Association' or India's Federal Investigation Agency, the search engine [at the time of clicking] mainly linked the abbreviation for the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile to 'standardised engines/transmissions', with no word said about the upcoming deciders.

The FIA motorhome in the paddock © LAT

Said power units had, of course, been a hot topic of discussion in the Asian paddocks after Bernie Ecclestone suggested in the run-up to the Japanese Grand Prix that they were under discussion at World Motor Sport Council level. A meeting with the recently-formed Formula One Teams' Association [FOTA] was called by the FIA for October 21 in Switzerland, and the F1 world and its mega-million fan base held its collective breath.

The heat was turned up, though, when the FIA announced a tender for standardised engines on the Friday before the Chinese Grand Prix - at which Lewis Hamilton could conceivably lift the world drivers' championship - then published a comprehensive 27-page tender document.

The title races were effectively forgotten...

The paddock was bemused by the move, but all seemed in order after the Geneva meet, for a rather terse statement, issued by the FIA, stated all parties had agreed 'significant cost savings for 2009 and 2010', and that FOTA was 'working urgently on further proposals for 2010 and thereafter' - with not a word uttered about engines, which had apparently been the purpose of the meeting.

Thus it was assumed by some that FOTA, represented by the body's two senior office bearers, Ferrari's Luca di Montezemolo and Toyota motorsport president John Howett, had persuaded FIA president Max Mosley of the teams' combined opposition to what many believe firmly will destroy the very essence of F1, namely that motorsport's premier category is and always should be a two-pronged contest: technical and sporting.

But, it seems, the sighs were premature, for a week later the FIA revealed it was continuing with the concept, having, it said, received enquiries from numerous (unnamed) interested parties. Predictably team bosses were not slow in coming forward.

First out of the blocks was Howett, who warned that the (six) manufacturer teams could leave the sport. "I think you will see manufacturers potentially leaving F1 if there is a standard engine," he said. "I don't think any of the manufacturers want a homogenised engine. I think the outcome depends partially on the FIA and the World Motor Sport Council, and whether they have a mind to press through with the idea."

One could, of course, argue that Toyota, winless despite a massive budget, is seeking reasons to exit F1, but would the same argument be applied to Red Bull Racing and Force India - both still seeking victory in their present incarnations - were they to leave the sport for whatever reason? It should...

But the salvo that caught the attention of the media, just as Ferrari's Felipe Massa was preparing to meet his adoring home crowd in Brazil ahead of the title decider (at the very circuit where he once delivered pasta to VIP guests as a youth), came from his team.

Luca di Montezemolo © XPB

The company announced record third-quarter figures, then expressed strong concerns 'regarding plans to standardise engines'. Such a move 'would detract from the entire raison of a sport with which Ferrari has been involved continuously since 1950, a raison d'etre based principally on competition and technological development'. Ferrari 'would have to re-evaluate with its partners the viability of continuing its presence in the sport', the statement concluded.

So, once again the governing body is, as outlined in these pages two weeks ago, faced with the option of 'saving' four independents at the risk of losing six manufacturers, one of whom has a 58-year history in F1, while most (Mercedes, Renault, BMW) have illustrious histories stretching back even further. And, while we're at it, let no one suggest that Honda, who entered F1 in 1964, does not have a proud past. Nor Toyota in other FIA disciplines, for that matter.

But one has to ask exactly what it is the independents are seeking, and whether they are, in fact, an endangered species. Yes, teams have come and gone; yes, the vast majority have gone bankrupt, but history should not mislead, for the circumstances surrounding today's indies are totally different to those faced by the likes of March and Cooper and Brabham three or so decades ago.

The bottom line is that three of the four independents are owned by (two) multi-billionaires who decided that Formula 1 provided the most cost-effective way of promoting sales of their products. Yes, better than hoardings at rugby matches, better than TV slots, better than full-page colour double-spreads in Sunday newspapers, and better even than billboards at grands prix.

After evaluating the potential of the sport via sponsorship partnerships of varying kinds, they went one step further and bought into teams.

Thus Vijay Mallya, who dabbled with Benetton back in 1995 and Toyota two years ago, has a majority share in Force India; Dietrich Mateschitz's company, which came into the sport in 1986 and progressed to partial ownership of Sauber before buying Jaguar Racing, owns Red Bull Racing outright and a 50 per cent stake in Toro Rosso.

So, far from the sport depending on the patronage of a couple of altruistic billionaires - as has been suggested in justification of the standardised engine concept - these self-made, extremely high net-worth businessmen took conscious commercial decisions that F1 was where they wished to invest their promo dollars, and acted accordingly.

Just as experienced truckers factor fuel-price increases into their long-term planning, so these businessmen had every opportunity of understanding F1's cost structures, particularly as one bought a manufacturer team as a full-blown entry into team ownership, while the other plastered his stickers over a car-company-owned team...

Dr Vijay Mallya and Bernie Ecclestone © XPB

The burning question is whether their cost-effectiveness drives should be permitted to totally destroy the tradition-rich DNA of F1 simply to enable them to sell another can of whatever at lower overhead.

Consider, then, that Red Bull Racing has steadfastly refused to allow sponsors to share space on its cars, something every manufacturer team does to reduce the cost of competing, and that Force India has hardly any major partnerships, certainly few not brought in by drivers, worth recording despite India's emergence as an industrial force.

According to most independent sponsor surveys, F1 continues to provide superior returns on investment to virtually every other promotional alternative, with Williams CEO Adam Parr telling this column in China that the ROI offered by F1 was 'at least 10 to 15 to one', while bubbling with enthusiasm for the team's future.

This despite the doom-and-gloom forecast by one or two sources for the sport's only truly independent team.

If any team could be said to be endangered it would be Williams, which exists purely to go racing by selling space on its cars, and has no billionaire sugar daddy milking the sport's promotional potential via ownership. But, even here, the financial predicament this team is rumoured to be in (although this writer doesn't for a moment believe it to be as acute as made out by sensation seekers) was driven not by the cost of engines, but by an unfortunate choice of sponsors.

Who could have known 12 months ago that the Royal Bank of Scotland would effectively be nationalised, that Williams's portfolio of (once) blue-chip Icelandic companies would be virtually bankrupt by end-of-2008, that FW30 would have inherent aerodynamic design faults that prevent it from regularly running competitively, thus impacting on income and TV exposure?

Even with totally free engines (which its Toyota units are rumoured to be in exchange for Kazuki Nakajima's berth), the situation would have been no different...

The first FOTA meeting at the Italian Grand Prix © LAT

Whether or not Ferrari, which eschews traditional advertising in favour of F1 activities as a means of moving its product, really exits the sport depends on many factors, not least whether FOTA can maintain the remarkable unity shown to date, and whether its members adhere to their covenant of not tendering for standardised engines.

In the past the company threatened to leave to strengthen its position against a ban on V12 engines, but if engine performance is removed as a differentiator, Ferrari, whose founder Enzo was utterly dismissive of teams who found performance via non-engine means, may just seek out double-page spreads as an alternative marketing strategy. Ironically, the biggest losers in that case will be Force India and Toro Rosso, both of whom rely on Prancing Horse power...