It’s been almost eight months since Jean Todt took over the helm of the FIA from outgoing President Max Mosley and during that time the Frenchman has been content to say little about his policies and plans, in direct contrast to his predecessor who was hardly ever out of the news. It takes time to settle into a new job. Todt, for all his experience will have wanted to settle in, listen to his office bearers and little by little, stamp his mark on the presidency and reshape public opinion about the FIA.

As a fan, I admit to having missed some of the internal politics that Max was so good at generating, his comments were always worthy of a debate or two in the forum comments. But equally, I’ve enjoyed the relative peace and calm with Jean in charge; his is a more thoughtful approach and one that I find appealing. He may not have said too much but what he says is usually worth waiting for. So it came as a great surprise to find that Todt has been voicing his opinion over the last day or so and I got to wondering why?

Could it be that he is somewhat miffed that the focus of media attention is still on Max Mosley or just that the time was right for him to start showing who’s boss? Whenever something newsworthy happens, the former president is more than willing to offer a sound byte or two, his latest being on the situation at Red Bull where he appeared to lay the blame for the Turkish GP accident firmly at the door of Mark Webber. And this, less than a week after he claimed Ferrari had asked for special treatment. It’s not much wonder that Todt now wants to be heard, to put a stop to the endless drip, drip of information (or misinformation?) coming from Mosley, the man who simply won’t fade into the background.

So what exactly has Jean Todt been saying?
Firstly, there was the news that FOTA, who had been discussing the relative merits of tyre supplier for next season were not to make that decision, it would be down to the FIA and Formula One Management. When asked if the FIA would have a say in the decision making process he replied

“Of course it does. And it will soon launch a tender, with the commercial promoter of the championship, Bernie Ecclestone.”

“FOTA may suggest that it decides, but the strong man is not he who speaks the loudest.” – Jean Todt

That last comment struck me as having a dual role, to show who’s boss and also as a jibe to Mosley that you don’t have to shout to be heard, that actions can speak louder than words. Not content with uttering his thoughts on tyre supplier, Todt then turned his attention to Lewis Hamilton and other professional drivers who get into trouble on public roads. Highlighting his campaign to “Make Roads Safe” the president revealed that he is considering sanctions on the race track for those who get it wrong on the road. It does seem intrinsically right that someone who is a World Champion has to maintain a higher standard of driving in private life, but whether or not it is right that the person should then be penalised again in his work life, for something which the Australian Courts will presumably deal with seems at best, a contentious issue.

Is the new, more vocal Todt here to stay? I guess that depends on whether or not he manages to stem the flow of comments from his predecessor. We live in interesting times…

Back in November I wrote about qualifying on low fuel and how I would miss the loss of the fuel-predicted grid. At the time I had mixed views; I hadn’t been privy to watching F1 when qualifying on low fuel was the norm but, as many fans seemed genuinely excited by the prospect I thought (and hoped) my pessimism would be unfounded.

Qualifying itself was fine, it wasn’t fabulous. I’d watched and had been happy that Formula One was back but it wasn’t as exciting as it could have been. I would have loved to have had the qualifying weights published so I could have had a stab at predicting each teams’ fuel consumption but it was not to be, even though the FIA had temptingly left a space for the pdf file of fuel weights on their site. But why was qualifying not as good as I’d hoped? I’d put that down to the drivers’ uncertainty over their cars handling on low fuel given the loss of extensive winter testing. The quirkiness of the new extended Bahrain circuit couldn’t have helped much either. Still, we had the race to look forward to and the race-refuelling ban would spice up the action as teams gambled on a safety car deployment and misjudged the amount of fuel to carry or they found that the cars handling characteristics changed so much as the race progressed that pitting for tyres would be essential… or so I hoped.

The race itself turned into another of those processional events where there was a distinct lack of overtaking. If it hadn’t been for Sebastian Vettel’s dodgy spark plug dropping him down the order we would have had the situation where the three front runners ended the race in that position, albeit with Alonso and Massa having swapped position. But a race review isn’t my plan for my post, I want to look at some of the reasons for the lack of overtaking; even the drivers feel that the race wasn’t as challenging as it could have been.

Are the new regulations to blame?

The ban on in race refuelling was put in place because the overtaking working group (OWG) felt that much of the overtaking for position was gained during pitstops and less so on the track. So this year the ban, coupled with an increased differential between the points for gaining a place were meant to act as encouragement to overtake on track. But these ideas don’t take into account the physics of overtaking; it’s all very well saying you have to overtake on track and the extra points are the “carrot” to make it work but the fundamental problem of being physically able to overtake in the wake of the preceding car have not been addressed.

“I caught up with Michael and then sat behind him for the rest of the race, I couldn’t get any closer.
You lose downforce, you lose front and rear grip. You don’t have traction, so you can’t exit a corner quickly. Michael was very weak on braking. I’d be eight car lengths behind and catch up on him but there was no way I could go past. It’s not like the old days. You could follow cars then, you could slide up the inside, you could race. It’s very different now.”
Jenson Button

Finding a cure that will assist overtaking will not be easy, changes to the technical regulations over the last few seasons haven’t done much to fix the problem yet we still had exciting racing, albeit with most of the overtaking courtesy of pitstop refuelling. If we now remove that element of strategy are we left with boring processional races this season? It’s something that the teams are concerned with too.

Whilst Bernie follows the money trail, teams know that without the support of the fans they will find it harder to attract sponsors and hence the money that provides for their technological input and allows them to be competitive racers.

“The most important people are the customers – they are the people who pay to come to races, or watch it on television. We are beholden on them to put on a good show and we should see what we should do.”
Nick Fry, Mercedes GP

So what can be done about it, at least in the short term?

 
Martin Whitmarsh, in his role as Chairman of the Formula One Teams Association is also of the belief that something must be done and done quickly, to resolve the situation and make the racing both exciting and challenging.

“Formula 1 has to be entertaining, people have to be switched on to what is going to happen in the race, if it’s processional they are not going to be. Today was not the best show, we know that and we have all got to work together to improve it.
I personally believe that more challenging tyres will help the spectacle of the show. We do need to look at mandating stops, we do need to look at the tyres and make them more fragile, and we do need to work on making the cars capable of racing close together and easier to overtake.”
Martin Whitmarsh, FOTA Chairman

Whilst I think a second stop and more friable tyre compounds (as long as safety wasn’t compromised) would help, I’d much prefer to have refuelling return. For me, it added another strategic layer to the racing and if we are to get back to more exciting racing, at least in the short term it’s something that should be considered.

Friction between the FIA and the teams had been slowly building since the middle of 2008 as the ongoing economic situation forced all parties to reassess the direction that Formula 1 was headed. However, there was little in the way of agreement as to how that could be achieved and Max Mosley’s proposal to use a standard engine only served to antagonise the car-manufacturer based teams.

Then at the beginning of the year, the FIA announced it would be opening up the grid to three new teams and in order to entice new entrants, new regulations would be applied: Teams willing to sign up to a budget cap would in return be allowed greater freedom with regards to the engine and aerodynamic limits. Those that didn’t sign up to the budget cap would run to the existing rules, however, it was clear that the technical advantages made this choice inconceivable. The teams were in uproar, prompting Ferrari to reveal a secret technical veto – not that the courts decided they could use it.

Forcing everyone’s hand, Mosley insisted that all the existing teams would have to submit entry forms along with the new teams. Williams and Force India felt they had little choice but to follow suit but the remaining eight teams submitted a combined conditional entry form demanding a change in the planned rules.

Events came to a head around the weekend of the British Grand Prix as FOTA, feeling that no progress was being made, announced plans to form their own breakway series.

“…no alternative other than to commence the preparation for a new Championship which reflects the values of its participants and partners. This series will have transparent governance, one set of regulations, encourage more entrants and listen to the wishes of the fans…” - FOTA Statement

The FIA considered legal action but days later, backed down. The rules would continue as originally planned for 2010 along with added cost cutting measures. The existing teams would offer technical help to the new teams in order to adjust to lack of a budget cap. Most significant though, signalling a shift in power in Formula 1, Max Mosley would step down as president of the FIA…

This blog entry was somewhat unplanned and I guess takes the form of a bit of a personal rant, prompted by the overnight news that Michael Schumacher could be allowed special permission to test the F60 Ferrari in the midst of an in-season testing ban.

Even though I am really excited about Michael making a temporary return to Formula One and the unique chance this affords us to see a former champion in action, I feel that it’s wrong on so many levels.

Special treatment?
Many drivers were very vocal on safety issues when new guy Jamie Alguersauri was allowed to compete at the German Grand Prix after having only completed three straight line tests. As it turns out, these were unfounded worries as the rookie managed to complete the race (and finish ahead of team-mate Sebastien Buemi) without any major mishap.

It does raise the issue of whether or not the FIA were short-sighted in banning in-season testing. Teams and drivers could all benefit from being allowed in-season testing time; it allows better assessment of new parts and provides new drivers the opportunity to get up to speed prior to racing. Indeed, it could be argued that BMW may not have left the fold if they had been allowed to test – their poor performance this year has not been helped by the lack of opportunity to test new parts that may have made them more competetive.

What kind of message does this send out to the teams and other competitors that a seven time world champion needs “assistance” to get him race ready? Part of my excitement at Schumi’s return was the prospect of him fighting against the odds with KERS, moveable wings and slick tyres that weren’t around when he last raced. If he is given special treatment, it lessens his achievements in the forthcoming race. It’s a bit like the pass mark for an exam being lowered to 40% for one candidate whilst it’s 50% for everyone else.

Fans have speculated in the past that Ferrari were given certain advantages that enabled them to claim many a victory. By Ferrari’s own admission, they had for several seasons, veto rights on certain technical changes hoping to be applied to cars. We were led to believe that when Ferrari were “enlisted” by the FIA to compete next season all such nonsense was out the window and that rules and governance were to be applied equally and transparently to all teams.

Now I CAN understand Ferrari’s request to have Michael test, it’s been several years since he last drove competitively and there are safety issues to consider. However, I’d have thought and expected that the request would be quickly denounced by other teams, and rightly so. I cannot for the life of me see why the FOTA teams would accede to their request, unless it’s to do with unity. Stranger still, is that Williams and Force India agreed, you’d think that having been excluded from the teams associatiom that they’d be less likely to say yes, unless of course they are being allowed back in for agreeing?

In my opinion the ban on testing is a bad thing but to allow it now for a one-off does nothing to enhance the sports reputation, do we also get a one-off test for Roman Grosjean, should he replace Nelson Piquet.. we should do!

Photo credit: Creative Commons licenced photo from PCW Flickr photo stream.

Following the actions of McLaren in Australia, article 151c of the International Sporting Code has entered common parlance among the F1 fraternity. However, recent action by the FIA has repeatedly left me thinking that perhaps they should be looking closer to home when it comes to bringing the sport into disrepute.

There is no forgiving what McLaren did in Melbourne and quite rightly the team were disqualified from the race. However, there seemed to be a general feeling around the paddock that others would have done the same in that situation, with USF1 team principle Peter Windsor openly saying as much. Afterall, Formula 1 is all about gaining an advantage over the opposition. McLaren wasn’t the first to take that the beyond the line of sporting decency, and nor will they be the last.

Take the revelations that Ferrari have enjoyed the benefit of a veto over the way Formula 1 is regulated since 1998, for example. Is that any better than what McLaren did? The main difference is that in McLaren’s case we have something tangible to judge it by – the points lost by Toyota and Jarno Trulli. In Ferrari’s case it’s harder to judge the effect but prior to the agreement Ferrari had gone 15 years without a championship. Since then they’ve won 14 out of 20.

However, in Ferrari’s case, the most sorry part of the affair is that the rule makers were themselves actively complicit in it all. Remarkably, it was Max Mosley who proudly declared this, as if nothing is wrong with such an idea. Perhaps it was because it was something that many suspected for a long while, maybe it was lost during the wider battles that were raging between FOTA and the FIA but for me, this was the low point of the entire affair. How can an independent governing body of a sport, justify a special relationship with one team?

“[We] had a real possibility of obtaining a Renault, Mercedes or Ferrari engine. It was made very clear to me that it was considered a ‘mandatory’ condition from the powers that be that Cosworth was the engine supplier.”

Moving forwards, we come to the expansion of Formula 1 to include 13 teams of 26 cars. There was widespread surprise when the names of Manor and Campos were announced alongside USF1. Okay, so we don’t really know the details of the applications – Lola have a history in Formula 1 but maybe they were not as organised as we thought. Prodrive had been given a chance before only to not make it to the grid and perhaps they were seen as a risk. Epsilon Euskadi, however, were a very organised outfit, citing funding in place for the next 4 years backed up with extensive existing facilities. Furthermore, it turns out that they had tried to enter Formula 1 on an earlier occasion by trying to buy Toro Rosso. No, whichever way you look at it, the choice was a big surprise and there were soon mutterings of a politically motivated decision.

Then questions began to be raised about the transparency of the selection process and in particular, favouritism towards Manor GP. Chief steward and Max Mosley’s right-hand man, Alan Donnelly was revealed to be linked to the new Formula 1 team through his public relations company. It was denied that he’d been involved directly and that he merely owned the company but questions of a conflict of interest were bound to be asked. However, that doesn’t even seem to be true as when further details came to light, Donnelly admitted brokering sponsorship deals between Manor, Virgin and a member of the Saudi royal family, claiming that it was a normal part of his role. Really? Before the team was even accepted?

The final straw for me is the revelation that acceptance of Cosworth engines was an unofficial prerequisite for being on the 2010 grid. It seems several teams were interested in striking partnerships with the existing manufacturer teams only to be informed by the FIA that only Cosworth power should be considered. This wasn’t a requirement that was declared before submissions opened, and it certainly wasn’t specified in the sporting regulations along with all the other stipulations. To complicate matters further, Red Bull and Brawn were allowed to enter without specifiying any engine supplier at all. All in all, the FIA has left itself open to accusations of commercial bias. The FIA didn’t even deny any of this, stating that “the whole grid would be at the mercy of the car industry.” It leaves the FIA in a potential legal minefield between FOTA claiming denial of trade, the unlucky teams rejected over their engine choice and the European Union sitting on the sidelines sharpening its knives.

In the end, McLaren’s punishment was lenient, with Max Mosley citing the team’s change of culture. Maybe the FIA itself needs a change of culture for as it stands at the moment, I don’t feel they are able to judge what is and what isn’t bringing the sport into disrepute. The only ones who can achieve this is the wider FIA membership who for too long have sat back and claimed “they were only following orders.”

However, to be totally fair, I’ll let Max Mosley have the final word…

“It’s clear to the dumbest person you do not want to allow any doubts to build up that could sabotage the level of investment some of these companies are prepared to go to, and careless talk from drivers of Villeneuve’s stature, or anybody else for that matter who is high profile and influential, is sending out the wrong messages and giving the sceptics ammunition. It is like sawing through the branch you are sitting on. You’d be crazy to do it.” - Max Mosley, following Jacques Villeneuve’s four-lettered criticsm of planned rules changes for 1998

24th June 2009 – armistice day. It hasn’t got quite the same ring as the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month (which was the 10th hour anyway by GMT) but we’ll take it.

The planned budget-cap for 2010 is now scrapped to be replaced by FOTA’s own cost cutting regulations, the aim being to achieve costs comparable to the early 1990s. FOTA in turn will sign a new Concorde Agreement committing them to Formula 1 until 2012. However, tellingly, Max Mosley has agreed to not stand for re-election to the role of President of the FIA later this year.

On the face of it, the terms of the agreement seem like a resounding victory for FOTA and a crippling defeat for Max Mosley. However, hasn’t Mosley only achieved what he set out to obtain in the first place, all be it at the cost of his own position?

“They’ve got the rules they want and the stability; we’ve got the new teams in and the cost reduction. So that’s very helpful.” - Max Mosley

You really have to wonder what all the fuss was about over the past few weeks and why Mosley didn’t back down sooner, and with less loss of face in the process.

Mosley isn’t the only loser though. USF1, Manor GP and Campos Meta on the other hand find themselves in a very different situation to the one they entered in. Gone are their technical advantages and they will now be looking at requiring a higher budget in order to compete with the existing teams. In USF1’s case, they shouldn’t have anything to complain about as they planned to enter under the original criteria anyway but 2010 could be a shock for the other two. To soften the blow, FOTA have agreed to provide technical assistance to the new teams but 2010 looks like being a long struggle for the newcomers. Furthermore, questions will still be asked about what might have been had the better resourced alternatives, overlooked by Mosley, been chosen.

The other losers are of course Williams and Force India who having departed the embrace of FOTA will have no say in the 2010 regulations. Possibly they won’t be missing much, as the regulations are not likely to be much changed from this years.

Nor for that matter is FOTA the only winner as Bernie Ecclestone finally gets his wish of a Concorde Agreement in place. Indeed, add in all the press coverage the argument has generated and it’s probably Ecclestone who will go to sleep tonight with the biggest smile of all.

But what about us? The fans. A single series and the survival of Formula 1 can only be good, on paper. The reality may not be so straightforward and it remains to be seen who Max’s successor will be. Mosley, if nothing else, kept things interesting over the years, now we’ll see what life is like without the old dog…