The Devil's Advocate: An Editiorial (Of Sorts)

[Captain Hammer]

Okay, so unless you've been living under a rock the size of Wyoming (or maybe somewhere in Wyoming), you'd know by now that the past week has seen some major controversy going on in the world of Formula One. Between lawsuits, rebelling teams, proposed rule changes, outbursts directed at new entrants and - almost as an afterthought - an actual race, it can be very difficult keeping up with the times. As half of this is happening between closed doors and the other half is driven by passion more than rationale, there's a lot that's being mis-reported and getting left out. This little quasi-editorial of mine is intended to support an alternative opinion - hence my calling it The Devil's Advocate - because I'm going to back the FIA on this one. Or, at the very least, present an interpretation of what is going on without assuming Max Mosely and Bernie Ecclestone eat newborns and bathe in the blood of virgins as everyone seems to assume they do as a matter of policy.

First of all, let's go right back to Square One, the shots that started this little war of ideology: the proposed 2010 regulations. Or, more accurately, the effect those regulations would have had on the 2010 championship by creating the so-called 'two-tier' championship. By electing to run under a voluntary budget cap, teams would be afforded a greater degree of technical and aerodynamic freedoms with unlimited in-season testing and the option to develop a four-wheel-drive car. Without said budget cap, the remainder of the teams would be allowed to spend as much as they wanted, but would be crippled by the regulations. In effect, there became two sets of rules, bu the important part to note is that this would only happen in theory. Practice is an entirely different matter because the rules were written in such a way that it would be almost impossible to justify running without the budget cap, unless your intention was to create a financial black hole. The freedoms and advantages afforded to teams running with the budget cap were so great that electing to run under the system is the obvious choice. However, this separation of regulations was enough to raise the ire of several teams. While most would elect to run under the budget cap, there was always the possibility that someone might decide not to; Ferrari, it was suggested, may elect to run without the cap. After all, not all of the regulations for capped teams are advantageous: the idea of a four-wheel-drive system, for instance, it unlikely to be developed (this would require a drive shaft to run under the driver, forcing the car's centre of gravity to be raised and thus having a negative impact upon aerodynamics).

All of this is just another chapter in the ongoing FIA-FOTA war, with Max receiving air support from Bernie Ecclestone and Formula One Management from time to time. When negotiations ended in stalemate, Ferrari filed their injunction with the French courts to stop the regulations from going ahead, unleashed a scathing assault on the prospective entrants for 2010 and basically acted like the most spoilt children in the history of spoilt children. One has to wonder whether the assualt - which was posted on Ferrari's website and basically critcised the new teams for not being Ferrari - was a case of Maranello being a sore loser as it came just hours after the verdict was passed and their injunction thrown out; after all, if Ferrari's recent form continues, it is likely they will be racing the new entrants rather than thsoe at the pointy end of the field. It's perhaps unsurprising given their branding of Ross Brawn as 'the most arrogant man alive' or some such. That, however, is inconsequential, given that the verdict in the French courts revealed information that drasticaly alters the status quo: for the past decade, Ferrari have had the rights to a technical veto, a vote that gave them the power to quash any proposed regulations they disagreed with. Until now, it has not been used to our knowledge (however, there may have been occasions were Ferrari exercised their veto and killed proposed regulations, the nature - or even the existence - of which was never made public). The Parisian court that dismissed Ferrari's injunction did so on the basis that Ferrari mis-timed their protest as they should have used their veto at the World Motorsports Council meeting earlier this month.

The veto is important because of what the proposed regulations are built around: the ideas of cost-cutting and, more importantly, equality. If the budget cap goes ahead, Formula One will no longer be won by the team that can afford to spend the most (Brawn GP's successes not withstanding). Every team will be equal in terms of spending, or at least as equal as they can be. Now, consider this: with a full grid of thirteen teams, only twelve will be equal. Ferrari wil be the outsiders because of their technical veto. They will have powers that the other teams do not, and considerable powers at that. Even if the other twelve teams were to band together in support of (future) proposed regulations, Ferrari could kill it there and then simply by saying 'no'. It's somewhat ironic - and certainly hypocritical of them - given that they want the current budget cap proposal axed because it does not promote equality.

Popular belief among the fans is that Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosely are trying to drive a wedge between the teams and spell the death of FOTA. But it could be something else, something more sophisticated than that: are they trying to diminish Ferrari's power? By revoking the technical veto Ferrari have enjoyed for the past eleven seasons, Ferrari are demoted to the same level as the other teams. It's easy to be a cynic and say that this will simply make it easier for the FIA and FOM to divide and conquer, but on the other side of the argument is the notion that such an action will make it easier for the FIA and FOTA to negotiate. The FIA would no longer have to accomodate Ferarri's desires before turning their attentions on the rest of FOTA and what they want. Could this be nothing more than another of their political powerplays? It's their favourite tactic: they have a proposal they want to putthrough that they know will be unpopular, and so they suggest something even more outlandish and then bargain the teams down to what they really want. In this case, what the FIA really wants is to kill Ferrari's additional powers.

It's been of interest over the past few days that Ecclestone has annouced the two-tier system has not only been abandoned, but that it was a stupid idea to begin with. This will obvously affect talks - the FIA and FOTA are meeting as we speak - as four of the five renegade teams are now much more likely to agree in principle. However, having followed this saga on several websites and forums including here, F1 Fanatic, Autosport, GT Planet et al, I've been stunned at the number of people for whom this does not register. Ecclestone's proclamation alters the landscape just as dramatically as the revelation of Ferrari's right to veto, and yet I've seen just a small percentage of people discussing it; although this may have been offset by the threat of legal action against Ferrari over their signing of a contract that will see them compete to 2012.

At the end of the day, after the legal loopholes have been jumped through, when the politicing and bullshit is done with, and the occasional tear shed over spilt milk, one thing is clear: if D-Day for 2010 isn't already here, you can bet it will be by the end of the week.

[Faustus]

A nicely written piece, Captain Hammer.

It's their favourite tactic: they have a proposal they want to put through that they know will be unpopular, and so they suggest something even more outlandish and then bargain the teams down to what they really want.

Absolutely agree. They've done that many times. I have to agree with your reasoning, it does seem as if the FIA has been trying to reassert their control over Formula 1.

the idea of a four-wheel-drive system, for instance, it unlikely to be developed (this would require a drive shaft to run under the driver, forcing the car's centre of gravity to be raised and thus having a negative impact upon aerodynamics).

It's actually quite feasible, just plug the KERS to the front wheels. No need for a diff, because the energy transfer can be all done electronically and all you need are tiny carbon-fibre driveshafts. A bit like the old Benetton Front Torque Transfer system, but with drive.

for the past decade, Ferrari have had the rights to a technical veto).

Makes you wonder what they've vetoed in the past, doesn't it?

There is/was a clause in the 2010 regulations for unlimited budget teams that specified controlled and / or less aerodynamically-effective parts, such as the underfloor. Who was going to design these?