The Weekly Grapevine

The unveiling of Minardi's PS05 a fortnight ago gave indirect confirmation that Paul Stoddart's tiny team intend running a 3000cc V10 in 2006/7, for how else could the cash-strapped team justify a completely new chassis for just 16 races? Certain structural components on the PS04 had been around, in real terms, since 2002, so surely the team would require their latest design to have a shelf life beyond China this year.

The 2005 FIA Technical Regulations permit such an option, with Article 22, which covers changes for next season stating the following:

ARTICLE 22: CHANGES FOR 2006

5.2 Alternative engines

For 2006 and 2007 only, the FIA reserves the right to allow any team to use an engine complying with the 2005 engine regulations, provided its maximum crankshaft rotational speed does not exceed a limit fixed from time to time by the FIA so as to ensure that such an engine will only be used by a team which does not have access to a competitive 2.4 litre V8 engine.

Stoddart recited the Article verbatim over dinner in Imola's paddock and, patently, Minardi could continue with a modified version of Cosworth's TJ2005 until the end of the present Concorde Agreement, with the only questions surrounding the upper rev limit imposed by the FIA at its sole discretion.

Now, there's a sweetener for the wry Australian: accept the terms for a future Agreement, and your engines run to 19,000; don't, and they are limited to 12,500rpm. That, though, is another story.

Did he expect the rule to remain as is for the next two years, for the sport's governing body 'reserves the right to allow any team to use an engine complying with the 2005 engine regulations' and, unless that right is granted, Minardi could well be forced to switch to a V8 design. Given the residual animosity between the bearded chain-smoker and the governing body in the wake of Melbourne's court drama, how certain was Stoddart that dispensation would be given?

"Well, mate, if it isn't I'll go straight to court. The rule is there to ensure teams have access to an economical alternative, and what is more economical than running this year's chassis and engines again?

"I'll tell you what: if they (the FIA) as much as change any wording of that article, let alone remove it, they'll have a fight on their hands. We won in Melbourne and showed them up, and we'll win again, and this time I won't be railroaded the way I was in Melbourne. There I was in a hotel room in my penguin suit having been called out of the Grand Prix Ball, I hadn't slept for 40 hours and had 20 guys, with (FIA President) Max Mosley on the other end of a telephone line from Europe giving them instructions, pushing me to withdraw my court action. It won't happen again, I can assure you."

How did Stoddart believe a court action would pan out, given that his home country, which applies the Westminster legal system, was unlikely to host the opening round of the 2006 FIA Formula One World Championship? "I believe any court of law operating to the Westminster system would have found in our favour in March and would do so in this regard, and I happen to know where the first 2006 race will be held. That country's judicial system is based on the Westminster system."

So, not only is it likely that the 2006 grid will feature at least two V10 engines, but that the opening round of the Championship will be staged at Sepang, for Malaysia, as a former British colony, administers its laws upon the Westminster model.

Where, though, does all this leave Cosworth, whose boss Kevin Kalkhoven flew in to Imola to attend his first Grand Prix since acquiring the company from Ford last November? Known to be developing a demon 2400cc V8, the company would no doubt dearly wish for Minardi to switch to the new design, particularly now that Red Bull Racing have confirmed a supply arrangement with Ferrari and Jordan seem intent upon continuing with Toyota if at all possible.

With rumours of a take-over of Sauber by BMW strengthening by the day, it seems Sir Frank could do well by opening talks with Cosworth, who, after all, powered Williams to their first three World Championships. BMW and the team will tell you that a contract until end-2007 binds the two, but all F1 contracts have break clauses, and maybe a deal will be reached should the Bavarian car manufacturer go complete its purchase of Sauber.

But, surely Cosworth is looking to amortize production of their V8 screamer over more than just one team - this year it has Red Bull and Minardi using the same engines - and Stoddart's decision to stick to V10s could mean lean financial pickings for the engine company in the short term, at least.

So, yes, by sticking to V10s there are obvious advantages for Minardi - and hopefully a court drama won't be required - but, by exercising their discretionary right and permitting same, the FIA, which introduced V8s for economic reasons, may well be sealing the fate of the last surviving race engine company still in private hands. Hopefully the irony is not lost on the governing body.

A Proposal for Qualifying

That the qualifying system adopted for 2005 would need changing was mooted before the first cars ventured out on Saturday afternoon in Melbourne; that drastic revision would be required was obvious come Sunday morning's first aggregates. On paper, last November, the concept of a grid order achieved by aggregating times set in two sessions - one with low fuel, the other with a race load - well nigh 24 hours apart looked workable; in practise it confused people and, if television companies are to be believed, led to greater viewer switch-off than any other single regulation change.

Of course, come the end of the Australian Grand Prix, every fan and his dog was demanding change, but, as always, change in Formula One requires unanimous agreement, and that is a commodity in severely restricted supply whenever team principals, all with their own survival agendas, meet for tea. So, change in the fastest sport on Earth is not slow, just fundamentally non-existent.

A meeting was held amongst team bosses on Saturday in Imola, and three proposals put forward, with the area of concurrence between them being that whatever system be adopted remain in force for the next 30 months - i.e., until the end of the present Concorde Agreement. But, the mere fact that three proposals were discussed, without reaching concrete decisions illustrates just how divergent are the thoughts of these allegedly seeking common ground.

One proposal encompassed an elimination process whereby the slowest five cars would be eliminated every 15 minutes, whilst another boss suggested a return to the all-out, free-for-all sessions of a few years ago. Yet another was for single lap one-shot qualifying on Saturday afternoon, of the type which bored all to tears in 2003.

So, with a quarter of the season gone and still no agreement on a future format for a session which, in the not too dim and not too distant past, delivered an hour's guaranteed thrills, this column has formulated a qualifying system which ticks all the boxes, namely:

» Provides for Saturday-only qualifying;

Â" Is definitive and instantaneous in that the grid is fixed by the end of the session;

Â" Can be packed into an hour's broadcast, and provides opportunities for commercials;

Â" Provides all cars with guaranteed television exposure through Hot Laps;

Â" Provides low fuel and race load laps, in order to provide sheer 'on-the-edge' driving, plus an element of race unpredictability;

Â" Provides non-stop action, whether for live audiences or television;

Â" Limits success perpetuation through variables.

In addition, The Weekly Grapevine's format introduces elements of teamwork, and includes a compulsory tyre change/refuelling pitstop of the kind so conspicuously missing since the introduction of single set race tyre regulations for this season.

During the Imola weekend the proposed format was discussed with various insiders, all of whom gave it their thumbs-ups, although, it must be said, one or two did so hesitatingly, and their suggestions have been factored into this proposal. So, how does it work? Very simply:

Â" One qualifying session to be held between 13.00 and 14.00 local time, with cars running in reverse of championship order;

Â" Format to be one "out" lap, two "flyers" and one "in" lap, with compulsory, full crew pitstop between the flying laps;

Â" Cars to start qualifying on low fuel and "reserve" tyres, run single flyer on low fuel, enter pit at end of lap for a full "race' pitstop encompassing race load fuelling and swap to selected set of race tyres before running second lap on race tyres and race load fuel;

Â" Time session to run continuously throughout both flying laps and the full pitstop, including pitlane entry and exit. Put simply, the format consists of two flying laps separated by a timed pitstop, with the clock running throughout;

Â" Succeeding car to begin warm up lap as timed car departs after pitstop.

Simple, non-stop action packed into two clean, yet fundamentally different laps, with the added bonus of some (much-lamented and highly visible) pitstop choreography. If F1 really is a team sport, such a format perpetuates that philosophy, and can only attract viewers. Of course, particularly malicious drivers on their slow down laps could attempt to delay succeeding cars out on their low fuel "flyer", but that has always been the case and a few really clear ground rules (and appropriate penalties) would solve that.

One team boss was particularly enthusiastic, and agreed to advance the format's cause. Here is hoping he finds unanimity.