An error, or something sinister?
A story first covered by the German media and subsequently picked up by a British motorsport website, which reports it as "new information", at first glance appears to be cut and dried - Renault is behind plans for a 'freeze' regarding engine development.
The news that the French manufacturer is calling for the freeze, and is reportedly making its own proposals as to how this might be achieved, in addition to coming up with other cost-cutting initiatives, gives the impression that it could be on the verge of breaking ranks with its fellow manufacturers that comprise the Grand Prix Manufacturers' Association (GPMA). This would open up a costly, and messy, can of worms since the manufacturers are legally bound together until September 2006.
This week, Max Mosley warned that he would be seeking to impose a freeze on engine development from 2008, further warning that next month, the manufacturers will be given a ten-day 'window' to sign for the 2008 Championship or face exclusion. Meanwhile, one week ago, Renault boss, Flavio Briatore urged the manufacturers to sign-up to the new Concorde Agreement.
According to the German media, Briatore wrote personally to Max Mosley on January 20, listing a number of recommendations as to how to make F1 a better spectacle and also reduce costs.
Amongst Briatore's more fanciful suggestions are calls for a salary cap for drivers - most odd, considering his other role as a driver manager - and an age cap - an idea discussed and dismissed by the team principals and Max Mosley in February 2005.
The Italian also calls for a ban on testing - at least in the summer - with the Friday of each Grand Prix devoted almost entirely to testing, and recommends that all Technical and Sporting regulations should only be changed every three years - thereby 'freezing' engine development and chassis design.
As we have said, at first glance, this would appear to suggest that Renault, under Briatore's guidance, is looking to break ranks, make peace, and sign up to the new Concorde Agreement.
According to the British website, the FIA has "refused to confirm whether Renault are the ones pushing for the 'engine freeze' idea", quoting an FIA spokesman as saying: "It would be inappropriate to comment".
However, a search of the FIA website reveals that Flavio Briatore has indeed written to Max Mosley with a number of cost cutting proposals, these include:
•The technical and sporting regulations should be frozen for a minimum of three years. Only in extreme cases should changes be introduced for safety reasons during this period.
•The regulations for the next three year period should be fixed and published a full two years prior to their introduction. The changes from one period to the next should again only be done for significant safety reasons. During the three year period of unchanging regulations each team must homologate a car and engine design that remains unaltered. Variations in car design to allow for cooling options and various downforce levels etc can also be homologated.
•Bodywork regulations to be altered to significantly reduce development potential i.e. remove bargeboards, brake drums and diffusers, and mandate standard front and rear wings.
•Enforce standard ECU and software.
•Mandate a fixed C of G position for the car (as is being done for the engine) with a designated (and protected) ballast volume for tuning to achieve this.
•Restrictions on materials used in construction of the cars.
•Allowing the sale of rolling chassis by one team to another team.
Other suggestion to reduce costs include:
•Eliminate all 'in season' private testing, replacing it with the Friday of a Grand Prix event being dedicated to free testing during a limited time period. During this testing day, drivers involved in the GP event would not be allowed to drive (to ensure that they used track time on the Saturday). In order to keep engine life similar or longer than current practice, the engine would have to be used for more than two GP events (engines being free on Friday). This should be coupled with a further reduction to test ban periods outside the season. For years when the design is fixed (as suggested above) these restrictions could be draconian. For years when new designs were introduced the ban could be moderated so that safety is not compromised.
•A salary cap on drivers. This has been applied successfully in other sports (NFL, NBA, Zurich premiership and Super League in rugby) and should be universal rather than based on a teams turnover. All contracts should be "owned" by the governing body to ensure this rule is adhered to. A by product of this is that research shows that in 2001/2002, the correlation of salary bills and wins for the NBA (which had a salary cap) was negligible at 0.13 whereas Major League Baseball, with no salary cap showed a strong correlation at 0.43 between teams salary bills and propensity to victories. This will help to limit domination by one team.
•A maximum age for a team's second driver.
•Making Grand Prix meetings two day, rather than three day events.
•A compulsion for engine suppliers to make engines available to at least two teams if requested under normal commercial constraints in much the same way that tyre suppliers are already required to. In order to ensure that the commercial costs are realistic a fixed price could be determined by the governing body.
•A ban on the use of spare cars (cars which are built up and require a separate crew of mechanics to maintain them).
Full justification for each suggestion is also given.
Reading through these comprehensive suggestions, which Flavio has faxed to the FIA on Renault F1 stationery, one would have to draw the conclusion that the Italian is looking for common ground, and that Renault is seeking a solution which will allow it to break ranks, almost certainly dealing a killer blow to the GPMA.
At a time when the manufacturers are saying that a freeze on engine development would compromise Formula One's image as the pinnacle of motorsport and the forefront of racing technology, Renault appears to be suggesting that a freeze would be the ideal solution.
However, before we all get carried away - and this includes Renault's partners in the GPMA - let's take another look at that fax. For it was sent to Max Mosley on January 20… 2005.
To check the document, click
here
It's old news, and Renault isn't involved in any skulduggery.
Which raises the obvious question; was this a simple error, or part of a plot to discredit Renault and thereby destabilise the GPMA?
