[AlbertC]

(I’ve gone through the forums to some extent looking for a thread that answers my questions without success.)

For many years I havn’t really been interested in the politics of F1, but since the last year’s controversies (such as Bahrain GP 2011, BBC/Sky deal, Exhaus blown diffuser rule change in Spain etc) I guess it’s time for me to fill in the gaps in this matter.

To make it simple; here comes a list of actors. My question is what do they get to decide?

– FOM

– Bernie

– FOTA

– Individual drivers/teams

– FIA

– Charlie Whiting

– Race organisers (such as ‘that royalty dude’ who cancelled the Bahrain 2011)

– Other?

Rather complex question perhaps, but giving examples of conflicts between these actors might also help me out.

[Prisoner Monkeys]

FOM is Formula One Management. They are owned by CVC, a venture capital firm. Bernie runs FOM; he is their man on the street, so to speak. FOM controls the commercial rights to the sport – they manage the calendar, contracts with circuits, and the brodcast arrangements. The race organisers are the people who put on the race. They are responsible for finding funding and organising the race weekend.

FOTA is the Formula One Teams Association. They are perhaps best likened to a union. FOTA is made up of eleven of the twelve teams in Formula 1 (Hispania is not a member because they believe it only serves the interests of the powerful teams). They look out for the interests of the teams, particularly when it comes to the sporting and techncial regulations. Individual teams have very little interaction with Powers That Be; rather, they prefer a united front. The voices of many are louder than the voices of few.

The drivers are represented by the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association, the GDPA. Like FOTA, the GDPA is a bit like a union, but for the drivers. They have very little say in the sporting, technical and commercial regulations of the sport, and mostly look out for the interests of the drivers, particularly when it comes to safety (for example, they suggested the kerbs at the della Roggia chicane at Monza be modified this year). They raise these issues with FOTA, who pass them on. Rubens Barrichello is the current chairman of the GDPA. The other factions usually listen to FOTA, because the drivers are the ones that have to compete.

The FIA is the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile. Jean Todt is the President of the FIA. They are responsible for enforcing and writing the sporting and technical regulations. The sporting regulations dictate the rules of racing conduct (for example, what to do when a yellow flag is shown). The techncial regulations dictate the rules for car design. Charlie Whiting is a member of the FIA. He is the race director; he controls the start, refers on-track incidents on to the stewards, and often has to provide interpretations of the rules when the rulebook is unclear (for example, the off-throttle blown diffusers).

Within the FIA is the WMSC, or World Motorsports Council. The FIA is a federation made up of every national motorsport club. Their members for the WMSC. The WMSC is the most powerful arm of the FIA, because they are the ones who vote on changes to regulations and ratify the calendar. They do not just influence Formula 1; they can influence all FIA-sanctioned motorsports events. For example, the Australian V8 Supercars recently applied to become an international championship. The WMSC approved, allowing V8 Supercars to hold more events outside Australia and compete on Grade-2 circuits (Formula 1 can only race on Grade-1) on the condition that they go no further west than Turkey. A Grade-1 circuit can host a Grand Prix or Formula 1 testing; a Grade-1T circuit can hold testing by not a Grand Prix, and a Grade-2 circuit can host everything up to GP2. A circuit grading is a licence that is issued to a circuit every few years, and is controlled by the WMSC.

Formula 1 does have a complicated structure, but it’s for a reason: one faction cannot have too much power. Otherwise, it would be like David Beckham both playing and refereeing a game of football. For example, if FOTA had direct control over the technical regulations, a manufacturer that supplied the most engines to the most teams could theoretically force through rule changes that favour them.

The powers and roles of each of the three factions – FOTA, FOM and the FIA – is spelled out by the Concorde Agreement, which is kind of like a treaty between the three and is neogtiated every few years; the current Concorde will come up for renegotiation very soon (look out for it in headline; both FOTA and the FIA want more say over the commercial direction of the sport). It outlines the relationships and responsibilities of all three. For example, it explains how the braodcast rights are paid out (each team is eligible for a share of the fees paid to FOM, depending on their finishing position in the constructors’ championship and a few other variables). The exact details of the Concorde Agreement are not known publicly, though you can find the 1997 document online if you look hard enough.

[AlbertC]

Big thanks PM! Great answer!

So the fiasco of HBD regulation change is FIA to blame then, for example?

[Prisoner Monkeys]

Not really. You’d probably have to blame Charlie Whiting and the manufacturers. Not the entire FIA.

The problem was that everyone agreed to the ban – and then everyone applied for special dispensations to run at different levels to the agreed-upon ones. Some got dispensations and others did not. The manufacturers all claimed that they needed those regulations because the engines had been designed around specific throttle maps, and running anything outside a range could damage an engine. If they had to do it for the rest of the season, they would supposedly have the potential to burn through their engine allocation (the teams are only allowed to use a certain number of engiens in a year) and be forced to take regular grid penalties (for going over the engine quota).

However, OTBDs are only a recent phenomenon, and they didn’t really gain attention from the teams until now, when the teams finally realsied the potential to generate mid-corner downforce by retarding the ignition and forcing the engines to burn fuel under braking, thereby creating more exhaust to be blown over the diffuser. Maybe the concerns of the engine manufacturers were legitimate, but in Formula 1, beating the competition on-track is only half the battle. The other half is by playing with the rule book, trying to get as big an advantage as you can whilst stopping everyone else from getting an advantage. So, when Renault said they couldn’t afford to run their engines at less than 50% of full throttle, it wasn’t because they were concerned about damaging the engine, it was because they were trying to find a way around the ban (the same ban that they had just agreed to, in an attempt to limit everyone else) and preserve their advantage.

When it comes to Formula 1 politics, most fans automatically side with FOTA. Even if FOTA came out tomorrow and said the sky was green, people would insist the sky is green because FOTA said it. The reason is that they see the FIA as being meddlesome and FOM as being evil, and the teams as innocent victims. Which isn’t always the case. In some respects, the teams are even more ruthless than Bernie and Max (Max Mosley, the previous FIA President) were combined.

[Author]

Posts