Bob Barnard Track Engineering

Has Bernie had a change of mind, or is that heart? His whole philosophy has been survival of the fittest, reward the successful, sink or swim. The Concorde Agreement is based on rewarding the top teams with most money and giving the bottom teams absolutely nothing. So teams come and go, would be F1 team owners learn the hard way and either claw their way up or disappear.

Now it seems Bernie is taking pity on the three new teams, maybe we should let new teams run last years car from Red Bull or McLaren to get them going. What's this, sympathy? Bernie as always has the solution and always has had. Do as the NFL and NBA do and give the worst teams the best picks in the draft, equalize the money, and try and equalize the competition. So Bernie could just reverse the Concorde Agreement and give the top teams nothing, after all they are winning and should attract the most sponsorship, and give the bottom teams more money.

If you think about it that would dispense with the RRA, the resource restriction agreement, as the top teams would be restricted anyway. Just a thought. I suppose the rude letters from Ron Dennis and Luca will arrive shortly.

Talking of Luca di Montezemolo and Ferrari, is he really worried about their test performance or just setting us up by suggesting that he hopes podiums are possible. Alonso was second quickest at the last test so not too shabby.

No word yet from Beijing, so let's hope no news is good news. The season is getting ready to start for real with the Melbourne F1 GP and Sebring 12 hour, looking forward to that.

A not so little field is contesting the Petit Le Mans this year, with 58 cars on track. As Tom Kristensen said, "It's like being under a yellow except you can overtake!" The Peugeots lead the practice by around a second from the Audis, with the Dyson car leading the gasoline brigade over some fancied European teams, so well done, but I suspect it is the knowledge of the track that is responsible. The GT's are typically going to be the show with the Risi Ferrari leading the pack, but with a whole bunch of Porsches, BMWs and Corvettes hot on their heals. The Jaguars continue to embarrass the marque and the team.

Stories continue to circulate if this is going to be a round of the WEC next year, but I guess only the ACO knows that. If so Road Atlanta is going to need an FIA level 2 license and will be subject to a limit on track density, so this could be the year to watch. Qualifying on ESPN3 tomorrow at 2.35pm EDT, and the race is live streamed starting at 11.15 EDT Saturday, with a "highlight show" on ABC Sunday. Good luck condensing ten hours of what should be non stop action.

The MotoGP teams are taking no chances. They have reportedly taken their own food and water to Motegi. A bit extreme and expensive. Aoyama said he thought he was in with a chance of winning his home GP when the stars said they would not be going. A 29 year old Australian, Damian Cudlin, has got the chance to shine by taking over the Ducati of injured Loris Capirossi. Damian is a somewhat unlikely choice, having been an endurance rider for most of his career, but good luck to him, although he will have his work cut out on the Duke. Perhaps he can still beat Rossi though?

Magnussen Jnr is testing for British F3 where he spent this season while dad is peddling a Corvette at the Petit. Kevin is leading the way amongst a group of returning drivers including this year's Champion, Nasr. Over in Jerez the would-be GP2 drivers are showing their paces with GP2 fixture Fabio Leimer topping the times. Alexander Rossi did not disgrace himself with 18th in the morning and 8th in the slower afternoon session, amongst some illustrious company. Missing is Robert Wickens who you would have thought would have earned a test. Maybe he does not have the sponsorship?

Kubica is making excellent progress and his doctor has no hesitation to say he will be able to return to F1. Whether he will have a seat is the next question. Apparently Lotus Renault, or whatever they are or will be, need an answer in the next two weeks. The team continue to be plagued by speculation about their financial stability and who will eventually own it, if anyone can work out who owns it now.

The Rescource Restriction Agreement,RRA, is the subject of rumblings again, with Red Bull once more accused of exceeding this "gentlemen's agreement," which as heard on a movie lately, assumes there are gentlemen involved. Mercedes is not happy, having downsized themselves, but probably out of necessity after the Honda pull out rather than the adherence to some vague constraint. Ross Brawn is calling for more tighter controls and independent audits, much as how the cars are scrutinised. When you have a system that is designed to reward the successful it is inevitable that if they have the money the top teams will find something to spend it on. Very few answer to shareholders, so it is not as if they have to give it to anyone but the owners, and Sir Frank for one would probably have a winning car than be rich.

They say money makes the world go round, and it certainly makes the F1 world go round. In fact it has enough money to go around, it just isn't being split up correctly at present. The Resource Restriction Agreement, RRA, was raised again by Horner, and Whitmarsh continued in the  "we must be more relevant and not be seen as gas guzzlers" vein. F1 engines are I believe the most efficient engines around when you consider the power they produce from each gallon, and not just look at the miles per gallon. And there is that old "relevant" again. I guess the World Cup is relevant because most of us have kicked a ball around at some time in our life, but there again most of us have driven a car.

Bernie in responding to the Mayor of Melbourne about the value of an F1 GP compared it to the Olympics and the World Cup, and as far as the Olympics goes he is dead right. I was in Barcelona in 1992 and watched the Sydney Games lead up, and what a con job that is. Go and spend $6 bn  on facilities you did not need and will not use again for two weeks of exposure that no one cares about afterwards. At least you get an F1 race each year. The World Cup  has been different as the stadiums are used afterwards, although we now have South Africa looking for someone to run them and Qatar building stadiums in the desert.

Mark Hughes writing in Autosport the other week said "The sport can't afford to allow money to haemorrhage out." His article concentrated on the cost to promoters of staging a GP and where that money is going. The basic problem is it is not going back into the sport, it is going to a bunch of investors who have done no more than buy the rights. No one begrudged Bernie making a lot of money, he built this sport over many years and with his own abilities, and made others rich along the way, but the current situation with CVC is unsustainable. Hughes questions how many new countries there can be that will keep paying for GP's, and when the existing ones will get tired of it, like Malaysia and Bahrain. Now I met both those track chiefs in Cologne last year and they are already asking those questions. In Bahrain the Parliament is asking what they get for their money, and the circuit chief has a good answer. "What would it cost us to send everyone who watches the race a postcard?" It is a good argument, and has worked till now, but for how much longer? Malaysia says it has achieved it's objective of putting the country on the world stage, now they need the track to make money.

Joe Saward asks the question what these latest popular uprisings mean for F1? It is OK to go to all these exotic places with loads of money, but how safe and stable are they? Apparently there are stirrings in Bahrain today, and the F1 circus is headed there shortly. Would a new popular government be so keen to spend millions on a rich man's toy?

In a somewhat related article Sebastian Vettel is asking if the wheel has turned too far towards making F1 a "show" rather than a sport? Movable wings, KERS buttons, all to make the show better, but not for the driver. Alonso does not think it will be any easier to pass a car that is similar in speed, only those pesky back markers, and as I said a week or so ago, timing when to turn the wing back at the start of the braking zone is going to be a tricky problem, with some drivers missing it in early testing. So, we are spending loads of money on "widgets" that we are not sure even work. OK, KERS or some form of energy recovery system is going to be part of future automotive design, but that is being developed in spite of F1, not because of it. Porsche and Williams kept on developing their system when F1 had given it up.

So we have a situation where there is an incredible imbalance between the three parties to the deal. The promoters are not making money, the teams are getting some of the money coming into the sport, and a third party who are a silent partner effectively is creaming most of it off. Is this sustainable? Add to that the alienation of the traditional supporters of the sport by removing the opportunity to see it live and pandering to an elite who will lose interest and move on to the next big thing. Ask NASCAR how that is working for them. And while we are at it let's think about the "Car of Tomorrow" where the rules are so tightly proscribed it is almost spec racing. The teams spend enormous amounts on the smallest, silliest parts just to gain a thousand of a second, and as soon as they find it the part is banned. Does any of this sound "relevant" or "sustainable?" Oh yes, and now we are to have tires that wear out faster to make the "show" more fun, is that being efficient or relevant, or even safe? Interesting how the word "green" has disappeared from most of the motorsport vocabulary, apart from good old ALMS.

Today's news seems all about money. Max Mosley accused Red Bull of exceeding the Resource Restriction Agreement, i.e. overspending, in 2010. Red Bull denies this, but this agreement is so full of get out clauses it will be hard to tell. The boys cannot agree on what is "Restricted" in 2011, and presumably they have committed most of their spending already. The RRA was a way for the teams to do what Max wanted and reduce spending without him unilaterally decreeing it, so of course it is full of loopholes on what is restricted and what is not.

Then there is the great article by Dieter Rencken in this weeks Autosport on the problems F1 tracks have making money. It is really a case of restricting the losses, and reflects what I have been saying here since I started the blog. All fans of motorsport need to read this to see the mess it is in, and how it is unsustainable. As we saw with manufacturers, as soon as Governments wake up there will be no more billion dollar race tracks, and we will need all those great tracks that have been cast aside in the name of CVC's wealth generation.

Dun and Bradstreet have just released a report card on when F1 teams pay their bills. Red Bull pay promptly, which may be why they are over the RRA. If you delay paying, like Lotus which is the worst offender with 180 days late, then presumably you can delay recording the expenditure? The bottom line seems to be suppliers know they are going to get paid. One supplier commented that "if Yijay Mallya sold his yacht he could pay the team bills for the next two years." Now paying bills late is not unusual, it is "good business" for lots of companies, including the one I worked for back in the eighties. I was running a State Branch of a construction company in a small town and would meet my subs and suppliers every day, and be asked when they are going to get paid. Now they knew they would be paid, but it got wearing, so I complained to our accountant, who was also a co-owner, who just told me the money was better in our bank than theirs, and putting up with the whining was what he paid me for. Touche.


And of course there is the ongoing "Banker Bribery" scandal to fully unfold, and the situation with "pay for ride" drivers, but we all knew F1 was really about money didn't we?