The Weekly Grapevine

A Tale of Two Letters

During the British Grand Prix weekend, two unconnected documents - released within 24 hours of each other - polarised paddock opinion.

In each case the first question was 'Is he serious?' followed by 'Is it doable?' Thereafter ulterior motives were sought (or, in some cases, invented) and analysed before three separate factions emerged: yes, no, and in time. To further complicate matters, certain Formula One luminaries shifted back and forth between the three options as the weekend progressed...

The two documents were, of course, a letter issued under FIA President Max Mosley's signature by the sport's governing body on Thursday, and the notice of intent of moving the oldest world championship Formula One Grand Prix in history to a circuit whose infrastructure and facilities require more than merely a total overhaul.

The flag of the FIA © XPB

Effectively within two years, if the dates given on the documents are accepted as being indelible...

Mosley's letter urged the teams to look at ways of making Formula One sustainable (based on his belief that the sport's present model is the opposite) and invited proposals to make the sport more energy efficient (by up to 50%) whilst reducing costs through various pointers.

In his letter, Mosley wished to see new rules introduced: "...come into force no later than 2011. These should be delivered to the FIA by 3 October 2008 and be sufficiently detailed to allow precise rules to be drafted."

Hence the first question ('Is he serious?'), followed by the second, particularly as Mosley's letter was circulated a week after the World Motor Sport Council meet in Paris during which the primary decision pertaining to Formula One was that the body '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 (which would) also involve a review of the governance of Formula One'.

So, is the letter a pointer to the transparent governance so desperately craved by the teams, or merely a continuation of the FIA's proven tactic of requesting input from the teams in the secure knowledge that unanimity amongst ten fiercely competitive team principals is about as likely as the Green Party underwriting a grand prix in the City?

More to the point, can the two deadlines be achieved?

F1 has long prided itself on achieving the impossible almost immediately, and, according to one team principal not known for undue optimism, a complete set of regulations is certainly possible within the time frame, but only if all ten team principals agree to every aspect within the three-month timeframe, and are prepared to let all cost considerations be blown away by their moving road wind tunnels...

There are two problems with this, he said. One is that 'team principals excel in their ability to disagree on every point', and 'changes cost money and big changes cost big money, and we have just started operating to regulations which freeze engine development until 2013, and to now re-employ the staff we retrenched or deployed elsewhere in the company is extremely messy...'

Bernie Ecclestone and Flavio Briatore © XPB

A technical director, with whom an interview had been scheduled before the letter was made public, but who wished to remain nameless until he had the opportunity of discussing the impact of the letter with his technical team back at base, did, though, allow during the grand prix weekend that any energy recovery plans were premature until teams had full-on experience working with KERS.

He also stated that whilst KERS may prove energy efficient, it was certainly not - according to tests so far undertaken - eco friendly. He cited as example the fact that the lithium batteries most teams had decided upon for storage did not carry airfreight certification and would have to be sea freighted in January if his team wished to use them in Melbourne at end-March...

'There would be no problem were they eco-friendly, so, apart from this waste of money and resources, we really need to examine whether we wish to be seen to be green, or really are developing eco-friendly solutions,' he said before pointing out that the 80 horsepower the teams would enjoy for six seconds per lap, or six minutes in total per race, would cost around £4000 ($8000) per lap in consumable batteries.

'It should be easy to reduce the cost of racing when a single burst of 80 bhp in 2009 will cost around four thousand quid...'

When these points were put to a team principal who has wholeheartedly embraced the spirit, if not the concept, of KERS as mandated for next year, he concurred totally, adding that airfreight certification of their batteries would cost 'us about a million pounds, which we will have to do to ensure we have the best batteries available at all times. Some people are talking less (than the million), but I doubt it.'

A team bosses meeting, called by Bernie Ecclestone - who seems to have patched up his differences with Mosley - was held on Saturday afternoon, and the overall consensus was that the teams would first need to discuss the proposals with their staff before commenting, but, certainly, they felt uneasy about yet another bout of rule changes.

'So, what was decided in the meeting?' the team boss was asked.

'Nothing actually, other than any discussion of a letter we received on the Thursday of a race weekend would be premature, and that we should get together in Hockenheim.'

'Was the Concorde Agreement, or rather lack thereof, discussed?'

Meeting of team principals © XPB

'No, the meeting was purely called to discuss the Mosley letter. Some people stayed on to talk to Bernie separately, so they could have discussed the Concorde individually, I don't know, but there certainly was no group discussion about the Corcorde.'

Next question: 'Do the teams see the letter as a genuine attempt of transforming the governance of the sport?'

'Well, some saw it that way, some were hopeful, others remain cynical. We'll have to see, all will become clearer by Hockenheim...'

The second letter needs, on the face of it, no clarification, although the two questions referred to in the opener were discussed all weekend, particularly when Silverstone Circuits staff or BRDC folk were willing to talk about a letter.

The letter was, somewhat remarkably, issued on FIA stationary despite the contents detailing a commercial agreement struck between the sport's commercial rights' holder, Formula One Management, on the one side, and the lessee of Donington Park, Donington Ventures Leisure Ltd, on the other, for the hosting of a British Grand Prix following the expiration of Silverstone's deal after next year's race.

With Donington Park circuit being, as of now, nowhere near F1-compliant, and thus requiring a major overhaul to get near the standards offered by Silverstone - sounds daft, but the former requires a total rip-down-and-start-all-over job to get anywhere near scratch, whereas the latter requires a mere lick of paint in comparison - the looks of bemusement as the letter was digested in Silverstone's Media Centre were genuine enough.

But, whilst the circuit could conceivably be rebuilt by 2010 - planning permission permitting - just as Silverstone could easily be revamped in time - funds and board approval permitting - those who attended Donington's MotoGP event in June were simply aghast at the thought of tackling the A453 during a four-wheel grand prix weekend after spending four hours stuck in sodden parking areas. This at an event attended mainly by bikers flashing their latest two-wheelers around...

Forget the new A43 - a full four lane highway where it counts most, yet this Sunday past still clogged solid in both direction three hours after the race - and reflect that the A453 is currently narrower and tighter than the A43 ever has been, certainly for the past 25 or so years.

Consider, then, that accommodation around Donington is simply non-existent, that the only motorway serving the circuit is the M1 - whereas Silverstone is additionally accessible from the M40 - that the place is 60 miles further north of London and Great Britain's most populous regions, and that the country's two major air gateways are 120 miles (170 kilometres) to the south, rather than half that.

Thus, compared to Silverstone - whose environs are hardly packed with hotels - there will be an even greater need for overnight accommodation, with major tailbacks all weekend being a foregone conclusion.

Donington Park © XPB

Ecclestone, of course, constantly carped about Silverstone's infrastructure, and, to be fair, he had a point, as anybody who visited Silverstone before 2003 can attest. However, said carping resulted in the A43 being upgraded at a cost of over £100m ($200m).

Whilst it can be argued that a major upgrade was overdue in any event due to traffic of up to 21 000 cars (17% HGV) travelling the road daily, there is no doubt that Silverstone village, and thus the grand prix promoters, benefited enormously in the process.

With the A453 having nowhere near that volume of traffic under normal conditions despite the close proximity of East Midlands Airport - as part of the research for this column, the author travelled to Donington on Monday, and met around a dozen cars on the road - and thus the chances of the East Midlands Regional Assembly (under which both circuits fall) approving a similar project are extremely remote.

After all, why should they care, or pump taxpayers' millions into arterial roads used to capacity but a few times a year, when a perfectly good facility already exists 60 miles to the south, one which has benefited enormously from a recent £100m investment, simply because a private equity fund wishes to maximise its investment, or because its chief executive officer is at loggerheads with a club?

However, whilst a multitude of answers existed to the questions being asked at Silverstone all weekend long, there was total unanimity amongst those questioned in the Media Centre that whoever takes on the British Grand Prix from 2010 onwards is likely to lose money, and big money at that.

Said one journalist, 'rather it be a bunch of naive businessmen than the BRDC...'