So this was posted on Autosport.com earlier and being a fan of Dieter Rencken's work I eagerly read it when I had the chance. I think I need to read this another once or twice before I fully understand what I've read... My hesitation is either because Bernie has played a great game of smoke and mirrors, or Bernie really doesn't see the obvious holes in F1 and his organisation...
Autosport.com wrote:
Face to face with Bernie Ecclestone
The health of Formula 1 is never off the agenda, and lots of issues were already in the spotlight before teams lodged a complaint with the EU. DIETER RENCKEN had a lot to discuss with Bernie Ecclestone
By Dieter Rencken
Autosport contributor
Ecclestone, Sochi
Sid Watkins - Formula 1's Doc Supreme - once said: "Arguing with Bernie Ecclestone is like reading a newspaper in high wind". At Sochi, we tested the veracity of the massively missed professor's observation, finding it to be utterly true.
We meet in Bernie's hospitality suite while FP3 is in full swing, the agreed time of 1100am having come and gone. He apologises, muttering disarming phrases about having broken off a meeting with "important people, but I explained that you were more important..." before postponing the next interview, with Russian media.
First question: How worried are you, as CEO of commercial rights holder Formula One Management, about Formula 1's future? Curt response: "I think no more than I've ever been."
Typical Bernie. The answer translates as "extremely worried", "not at all", or anywhere in between, but the bottom line is clear: F1 has had crises, but always survived.
OK, but are the current issues not somehow out of your direct control?
"When you're dealing with a whole bunch of people that are competitors, all trying to find ways to get an edge on other competitors, you will always get these sort of problems," is the expected answer.
But surely that phenomenon is to be expected in a highly visible and competitive environment, where the starting price of joining a conversation is north of a hundred million bucks?
"No - the only problem today is that we've got two manufacturers that want to make sure nobody destabilises what they're doing."
Bernie, we've had similar situations in the past, but you were able to control them...
"The difference is, at the moment there's two people supplying engines, basically, so they have a bit more control than when there was somebody who could supply anybody with engines," he says quietly, almost menacingly. In his unshakable opinion, F1's hybrid engines lie at the root of the sport's current maladies.
He explains how the complexity and cost of the units - and "five-year start the leaders" have - deter prospective entrants. But the sub-question then is: Why did no manufacturers join after the regulations were framed back in 2009?
After all, Bernie was then, as now, chairman of the Formula 1 Commission, the final step in the process before the FIA's World Motor Sport Council ratifies regulation changes.
"It was [then FIA president] Max [Mosley] that decided we should have the engine," Ecclestone says. "He thought it would attract manufacturers. I said at the time 'Max, maybe we should get the manufacturers to say if we had this type of engine, we would come in'."
That, though, was the point in time Honda, Toyota and BMW made mass exits, so did F1 not learn that manufacturers seldom commit fully?
"Yes, we have realised that."
It is the morning after incoming Volkswagen Group boss Matthias Muller announced all nascent projects had been canned, suggesting any possible F1 entry to be off the table, certainly for the foreseeable future.
Yet Ecclestone seems to harbour hopes that VW will enter sometime soon, adding, "I'd be surprised if they didn't".
When?
"We'll see."
He suggests two further manufacturers could soon join F1, even if VW remains in the cold, but only "if we change the regulations." Ecclestone suggests, as he did last year, that the engine regulations could be changed by as early as 2017 - assuming the F1 Commission and WMSC are able to sort revisions by February 28 next year, as demanded by the governance procedure.
He provides scant detail, save to add that in his opinion the "three to four month" window to the deadline is sufficient, and that hybrid systems will be retained regardless.
All becomes clearer during the weekend when insiders suggest the engine manufacturers have requested a meeting with the FIA to revise the regulations, possibly by dumping the controversial token system.
That said, F1 was at this very point one year ago in Abu Dhabi, and is still chasing its tail over engines. So there is probably an element of wishful thinking, which comes down to the earlier question of "control".
Clearly Ecclestone deserves enormous praise for transforming F1 from a pastime populated by greasy fingered mechanics entertaining niche bands of enthusiasts to a slick global show playing to enormous audience blocks every fortnight. However, now that F1's popularity is slipping in virtually every market, who is to blame?
Bernie deftly swerves the implied accusation by identifying not an individual, but the bane of his life: "If you go back a little bit, not too far, you realise that a lot of the problems that we've had are because of this engine, this power unit."
F1 was, though, faced with a breakaway series in 2009 - long before the engine regulations were finalised - but appears to have been going around in circles recently. Has Formula 1 lost its allure?
Is it the "shit product" one promoter suggested it is? And, if so, how did F1 reach this stage?
"It could be better," he says. "Maybe if we didn't have this power unit, it wouldn't have happened in the first place."
So, if we take the power unit out of the equation, problem solved?
"Absolutely," he fires back without pause. "Problem solved.
"If we took the power unit away, we'd have an independent engine manufacturer immediately that could supply anybody.
"At the moment, if you were using a Mercedes engine and there is a discussion about something, and I was Mercedes and I said 'I'm going to vote on this and you should vote the same'..."
Is he, then, suggesting standardised F1? Standard tyres, standard engines...
"No, we won't have a standard engine, we'd have a choice of engines," Ecclestone says before making reference to the Cosworth era, when his Brabham team won the 1981 title with engines supplied by the Northampton company. "We want to go back to that."
So, Bernie, you're suggesting a commercially-available engine for independent teams?
"Good word. Yeah, absolutely. Exactly right."
Overlooked, though, seems to be one crucial factor: Cosworth did not bankroll its legendary DFV. Ford did, in return for tappet cover badging and naming rights. Indeed, history records that Nelson Piquet's first title was won not with a Brabham-Cosworth, but a Brabham-Ford. Is there a manufacturer willing to copy that model?
"Not really," he says before clarifying: "I mean, it wouldn't make any difference if somebody had to bankroll it - it doesn't have to be a manufacturer."
Former BAR team boss Craig Pollock's ill-fated PURE hybrid engine project relied on a similar model, but it collapsed after the Scot failed to find sufficient badging partners, so there exists a precedent.
"It could be you or I, if you like," Ecclestone says despite knowing full well that the partnership would falter on the basis of a distinct lack of finances on this side.
"If we decided this is what we're going to do, we could do it. Let's see what happens," is the response, when asked whether he is actively pushing the badging model.
In summary, then, in his opinion all of F1's problems would be wiped away in a flash, were the engine situation to improve?
"I think so," he says somewhat unconvincingly. However, he clearly resents the engine formula devised and pushed by the previous FIA regime, and even if he does not directly blame Mosley - his friend of 30 years, remember - for its introduction, the implication simmers throughout our 25-minute interview.
We move on.
Would solving the engine issue remove the threat of any EU investigation, or legitimise the Strategy Group? Or reform F1's financial inequities at a stroke? Is he surprised two teams filed a complaint? And do they have grounds for complaint in his opinion?
"Not really. They've always said they would; they complained about the way the money is distributed," he says. "Do they have grounds? They have complained, and it's up to the European Commission to decide whether they've got grounds."
Yes, but would you have complained, had your team found itself in that position?
"If I were a team, would I complain? Probably not, because if I've made an agreement and signed a contract, I probably wouldn't have agreed to change it."
They believe they faced the Devil's Alternative, ie damned if they did sign, and damned if they didn't, Bernie. We beat about briefly whether the Devil's Alternative - as idiomised by Frederick Forsythe in the novel of the same name - presents any form of alternative, before Ecclestone makes a surprising comment:
"I don't remember in detail exactly how [how the financial offers were made], but I don't think it came about like that."
Maybe, but the EU will surely be very interested to hear from the teams how all this came about, and then hear from other teams such as Ferrari.
"I'm sure. They have to be."
Does he believe differentiated payments and the Strategy Group was really the way to go? In retrospect, would he not simply prefer to tear everything up and start afresh?
"I have suggested that on two or three occasions, but you can't force people to tear up contracts."
Surely, though, if the EU finds them null and void, would he be in favour of them being found null and void?
"We'll have to see."
There's a conspiracy theory that says you would like that to happen...
"I don't know why I would," he says, looking at me blankly, even after I say it would remove an awful of headaches. "I don't have any headaches with that."
We turn to the contentious Strategy Group.
"What's wrong with the Strategy Group? Do you know what the Strategy Group is?" he fires back.
After I explain that it was originally devised as a "streamlined Formula 1 Commission" - in the words of numerous team principals - Bernie argues it was never designed to replace the Commission, simply to formulate F1's future direction.
I point to an October 22, 2012 meeting in Paris during which it was decided to retain both the Strategy Group and Commission, adding further layers of complexity to an already convoluted process. Bernie is, though, having none of it.
Either my sources, all of whom provided the information independently over time, are utterly misinformed despite having been in Paris, or Bernie has genuinely forgotten. It is not the only time we agree to disagree, so we return to its effectiveness, or otherwise.
"I was the one that put the Strategy Group together," Ecclestone says.
"The Commercial Rights Holder has six votes, the teams have six votes and the FIA have six votes. We discuss things, present it to the Formula 1 Commission where all the teams sit, and the teams' sponsors. If they approve... or they send it back.
"They can't change it, say, 'have another think'. It comes back to the Formula 1 Commission and then to the World Council, which is where it more or less would go through. So that's how it is."
Indeed, the procedure has been outlined many times, but the fact is the composition of the Commission was changed in order to weight it in favour of FOM by modifying previous clauses that teams could collectively nominate two circuit owners. Then, a sponsor (Rolex) contracted solely to FOM replaced a team partner.
Add in HRT disappearance, and the vote was tilted against the teams by a swing of at least four votes, all of which is supported by documents seen by this writer.
"No, it's never been changed, the construction of the Formula 1 Commission has not changed," he argues vehemently, before suggesting that I procure the right "documents". Again we agree to disagree.
"And you know also if [we], the Commercial Rights Holder and the FIA, agree something, we don't have to ask anybody. We have to ask the Formula 1 Commission."
Yes. That's because you and Jean [FIA president Todt] have the six and six votes...
"Absolutely. And then it goes to the Formula 1 Commission. And then the teams can reject it. So the teams have the control."
Back to square one. Thus we turn to the question of Todt's presidency. How is their relationship?
"Good."
No problems?
"Not at all."
Is he supporting Formula 1 enough? Is he leaving you alone enough?
"Yup."
Max was regularly involved. Which approach do you prefer? The Max approach or Jean's approach?
"Well, we've asked for this, this is why we've got the Strategy Group; it's us that put it together. So they must be happy with that. Because basically if we agree with the teams, there's nothing the FIA could do."
At one stage the relationship seemed slightly fractious; has it improved?
"When he came in he was sort of the new kid on the block, and things changed with the times."
Would you like to see him continue as president?
"Yes, no problem."
With that we head for the door as the session is red flagged due to the Carlos Sainz Jr crash. Bernie pauses, looks me in the eye, then asks: "Are you sure about the Formula 1 Commssion and all that?"
Yes, Bernie, 100 per cent...
"You know, you have me worried, I can't remember. I'll go back and check."
A quick handshake, and he turns to the media waiting in the reception area.
Register
Login
FAQ
Search
