Adam Cooper F1

The US GP has been listed as provisional on the latest version of the 2016 F1 calendar, which was published today after a meeting of the World Motor Sport Council in Paris.

Although the Austin race still has its previously announce date, the FIA says that it is “subject to agreement with the promoter and the ASN.”

As previously reported the race has lost some 20% of its subsidy from the Texas Major Events Trust Fund, with a reduction from $25m to $19.5m for this year, and COTA boss Bobby Epstein has made it clear that the race could be under threat.

The only change from the previously published version of the schedule is that Mexico has moved forward by a week from November 7 to October 30, which means it is again a back-to-back with Austin. Bernie Ecclestone had originally twinned the race with Brazil.

2016 F1 World Championship

20 March Melbourne Australia

3 April Bahrain Bahrain

17 April Shanghai China

1 May Sochi Russia

15 May Barcelona Spain

29 May Monte Carlo Monaco

12 June Montreal Canada

19 June Baku Azerbaijan*

3 July Spielberg Austria

10 July Silverstone United Kingdom

24 July Budapest Hungary

31 July Hockenheim Germany

28 August Spa-Francorchamps Belgium

4 September Monza Italy

18 September Singapore Singapore

2 October Sepang Malaysia

9 October Suzuka Japan

23 October Austin USA**

30 October Mexico City Mexico

13 November Sao Paolo Brazil

27 November Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates

*race start to be scheduled to avoid conflict with the conclusion of the 24 Hours of Le Mans

**subject to agreement with the promoter and the ASN

The FIA World Motor Sport Council met today in Paris and took the unusual step of giving Jean Todt and Bernie Ecclestone a mandate to address key issues facing F1 – which could mean that they could introduce measures that have not been voted through by the teams in the F1 Commission.

The big issue of the moment is that of power units, and the manufacturers are due to present proposals in the middle of January. Todt and Ecclestone have agreed to come up with answers by January 31st

The FIA said: “The World Motor Sport Council approved, by a near unanimous number (just one vote against), a mandate for the FIA President, Jean Todt and the Representative of the Commercial Rights Holder, Bernie Ecclestone to make recommendations and decisions regarding a number of pressing issues in Formula One such as governance, Power Units and cost reduction. Mr Todt and Mr Ecclestone expressed their intention to establish conclusions on these matters by 31 January, 2016.”

Meanwhile the WMSC also addressed some key regulation changes, including clarification on how the engine token system will work in years to come:

“The number of power unit tokens allowed for in-season development will be allocated as follows over the coming seasons:

2016 – 32, 2017 – 25, 2018 – 20, 2019 – 15

“Any new Power Unit manufacturer will be allocated 15 tokens in their first year, and 32 in their second.”

It also confirmed that all manufacturers can now run previously homologated engines: “Power Units homologated in previous seasons may now be re-homologated. Previously nomanufacturer could supply more than one specification of PU. The World Motor Sport Council was also advised that the FIA had agreed for Ferrari to supply a fourth customer team with a 2015 specification Power Unit in 2016.”

The latter is a reference to Scuderia Toro Rosso.

The tyre regulations have been adjusted to allow teams to have a choice of three tyres each weekend.

“The tyre supplier will now provide three dry-weather compounds instead of two.

“Of the 13 sets of dry tyres available to each driver, the tyre supplier will choose two for the race (only one of which must be used in the race), and one set (the softest available) that may only be used in Q3. Each driver may then choose their remaining ten sets from the three available compounds

“Unless intermediate or wet-weather tyres have been used, a driver must use at least two different specifications of dry-weather tyres – at least one of these must be the one chosen by the tyre supplier.”

There are also changes to the Virtual Safety Car: “In the event of a Virtual Safety Car (VSC), DRS will now be re-enabled immediately after the VSC period. Furthermore, the VSC may also be used in practice sessions to reduce the amount of time lost during a stoppage.

Finally, “The maximum number of Championship events in a season has been increased to 21 (from 20).”

Ron Dennis has earmarked Sauber as a potential future second team for Honda, according to sources close to McLaren.

Dennis made it clear yesterday that Honda could not supply Red Bull in 2016 because the time scale made it impossible for the Japanese manufacturer to make enough parts.

However there is increasing pressure from Jean Todt and Bernie Ecclestone for Honda to work with another team from 2017, and Sauber presents an obvious opportunity, not least because McLaren would not regard the Swiss team as a direct rival.

Team boss Monisha Kaltenborn insisted that there was only a general discussion about Sauber’s engine situation at the recent F1 Commission, but she admitted that longer term, options were open.

“There was a lot of engine talk going on in the meeting when we were all in there,” she told this writer. “And in that context we were discussing an option like that, and more looking at the past and what had happened.

“In the context of that we also had a talk about what our engine situation is, and we said we are currently bound, but you should always keep all options open. It was embedded in a bigger public talk about engine suppliers having to supply more teams. We have a long lasting relationship with Ferrari, it’s a good relationship. But no one knows what’s going to be in two, three or four years.”

Intriguingly Kaltenborn admitted that she had talked in the past to former Sauber driver Kamui Kobayashi about the possibility of the team getting a Honda supply.

“There was once an idea that we were thinking of maybe having Honda. We were not approached by Honda, put it like this, but it was because of Kamui Kobayashi, who came and asked us. Don’t ask me if it was last year or the year before, but this was the context of that talk.”

The FIA Stewards have responded to the request for Mercedes for clarification of he rules concerning technical co-operation between teams, especially in respect of wind tunnel use.

The Mercedes submission was made in the light of widespread suspicions in the paddock that Ferrari has gained from its relationship with Haas F1. The new team is using the Maranello wind tunnel as it prepares for its entry in 2016. Signifcantly, today’s ruling will not apply retrospectively.

The Stewards have also said that no one has been behaving incorrectly, despite the suggestions about Ferrari and Haas, in essence because the new team was not yet an official competitor: “Having examined the reports (including audit reports team facilities) provided to us, the Stewards confirm that there is no evidence that competitors have not complied with the requirements of Appendices 6 and 8 as they were interpreted prior to today’s date.”

The stewards have tightened up the definition of many areas of the relevant rules as pinpointed Mercedes, all of which make it harder to teams to share aero data. Among them is a restriction on staff being seconded from one team to another: “No employee of a competitor who is involved in aerodynamic development may be seconded to, or temporarily employed by, another competitor unless such secondment or employment is a genuine long term arrangement for the sole purpose of providing the other competitor with technical expertise. Any seconded employee must not then return to the original competitor without a suitable (or normal) period of “gardening leave” or “isolation”.”

One of the key conclusions of the Stewards report is that henceforth a new team has to comply with the same rules on wind tunnel use and so on as any other existing team from the moment that it is accepted. Currently this has been something of a grey area, with teams only regarded as becoming official competitors when the entry list is confirmed in December.

The FIA said: “The Stewards recommend to the FIA that in future once a potential competitor (as opposed to Official Entry) applies to be a competitor in the FIA Formula One World Championship and this application is accepted, that competitor should be bound by Appendices 6 and 8 (and for that matter any other appropriate sections of the Formula One Sporting and Technical Regulations).”

The stewards acknowledged that the point of aerodynamic restrictions was to keep a lid on costs: “That intention is understood to be to place limits on the amount of aerodynamic development each competitor is able to carry out and to prevent an escalation of the costs associated with research particularly, for Appendix 8, in the area of aerodynamic testing. None of the representations of the teams or any other party challenged this underlying objective. Accordingly our interpretation of the regulations as they stand has reflected the above intention.”

Ron Dennis admits he decreed that Honda could not supply Red Bull in 2016 – but the McLaren boss insists that the Japanese manufacturer was fully behind the decision.

Red Bull tried to get a Honda deal after failing with Mercedes and Ferrari, but despite help from Bernie Ecclestone, McLaren vetoed the idea.

Dennis says the possibility of Honda expanding to a second team came too late, and that the biggest issue was making enough parts given the pace of development.

“We sat with Honda and absolutely analysed where we were,” said Dennis when asked by this writer. “And absolutely analysed where we were, and would it enhance our ability to become competitive faster or not by bringing in another team, such as Red Bull, who would pressurise the system even more?

“Based on the current supply structure, where we are on the engine, the time before the first Grand Prix [of 2016], it was very, very clear that the decision really was that it wasn’t possible physically to push the suppliers up the supply chain to increased production, because we didn’t know what we wanted them to make.

“Our engine programme will be late next year because we want to take the maximum amount of time to make parts. How many parts do you make, bearing in mind there is a lot more freedom now. Anyone can design a new engine next year, everybody is designing a new engine.

“The more engines you have to make, the more your supply change gets stressed, because you have to develop components and then commit to how many you’re going to make – a lot of what you make in an R&D capacity is scrap. Just having increased the budget into F1 Honda could see no real economic logic at this stage to embrace another team.”

Dennis says he made the final call: “Someone had to take a clear decision, and as it needed someone to take a decision, I took one, and therefore took the understandable flak. But it was fully supported by Honda. We didn’t have the capacity to engage another team, but someone had to stand up and say this is not going to happen. It wasn’t me countering a desire of Honda, this was me taking responsibility for the decision, which goes with the job.”

Renault’s future in F1 remains in the balance, and the French company has yet to commit to purchasing Lotus.

The clock is ticking given that Lotus is in court on December 7, and the team faces the prospect of going into administration.

“What I can say is that there will be no announcement regarding Renault’s future short term, or middle term future over the weekend,” said Renault Sport’s Cyril Abiteboul. “But there will be an announcement very likely in the course of next week.

“We always said that we would like to do that after the season, the season is ending on Sunday, around at the start of December. So that is what we will do, we will make an announcement then. Later he told the BBC: “Pulling out of F1 completely is on the table if we don’t manage to convince the board that F1 is a meaningful investment for Renault. 

Renault has always made clear that the deal to purchase Lotus and turn it back into a works team depended in large part on the financial numbers, and specifically on how much FOM money Bernie Ecclestone was willing to commit. However it’s understood that he has changed his mind on the original offer made to Renault.

Ecclestone is keen to have Renault back as a works player and saviour of the Enstone team, but even keener for Renault to maintain its role as engine supplier to Red Bull.

Sources have suggested that Ecclestone originally agreed a figure on the basis that Renault remained with RBR – in effect subsidising the team’s supply – but then discovered how much Red Bull has agreed to pay for the French engine on top of that. His view is understood to be that Renault would in effect be being paid twice for the same thing.

Senior executive Jerome Stoll, who is the Vice President of Sales and Marketing for the Renault Group, as well as President of Renault Sport, has met with Ecclestone in Abu Dhabi to discuss the situation, and it’s understood that they will talk again on Saturday morning.

One complication for Renault is that by signing a 2016 contract with Red Bull the company is now obliged to be present in F1 next season, and one of Ecclestone’s key problems – finding an engine for RBR – has been solved. That has potentially weakened Renault’s hand in any negotiations, even if the future of Lotus remains under threat.

The FIA has changed its procedures for measuring tyre temperatures and pressures on the grid in the wake of Felipe Massa’s exclusion in Brazil.

The move follows an internal investigation of Massa’s tyre issue by the team, the results of which were shared with the FIA by Pat Symonds.

One of the key issues for Williams was that no senior personnel were aware that Massa’s right rear tyre had been checked on the grid by FIA technical delegate Jo Bauer and his assistant Kris de Groot, and the team knew nothing of any discrepancy until an official message came from the FIA some way into the race.

Henceforth any FIA tyre check on the grid will have to be witnessed by the car’s race engineer, who will thus clearly be made aware of any issues. This is similar to the way car weight checks are carried out, when team members can observe and log any figures.

This will also resolve another key issue – the anomaly that allows the FIA to record that a car is “unsafe” before the start, given that the checks are in place at Pirelli’s request, and yet the car is allowed to start the race. This became a major talking point with Mercedes at Monza, as well as in the Massa case.

Now if the FIA records illegal numbers the team will still have the option to take the car off the grid, change its tyres, and start from the pitlane. The driver will thus head into the race with a legal car and thus won’t be wasting his time by running under the threat of an exclusion, although there could still be a penalty for the grid issue.

Meanwhile the Williams investigation indicated that the reading recorded by the FIA’s infra red gun was affected by heat reflected by the tyre blanket, and that the logged figure of 137C was not the true temperature of the tyre itself.

Although the FIA has not officially accepted that as an explanation it will adjust is tests in future by ensuring that when the temperature is checked the blankets are opened sufficiently, and the gun aimed into an are not shaded by the blanket, so that there is no risk of heat reflection having an impact.

The teams themselves also have the option to make sure that they are happy that the blankets are fully open when any test is conducted.

Williams explored the phenomenon of heat reflection by using a thermal imaging camera on a tyre in a blanket, which demonstrated what happened when the blanket was partially unwrapped. As the blanket was opened, the tyre temperature dropped dramatically.

“What we’re seeing is a heat reflection in exactly the same way that you get a light reflection,” said Symonds. “That reflection is occurring where the tyre is closest to the blanket, the reflection coming off the blanket. Where you are well away from that heat source you don’t see the reflection, so therefore the reading is good.”

Symonds also confirmed that had the team been informed on the grid in Brazil that a tyre had potentially been overheated – as happened on the Friday of the 2015 Russian GP weekend when a set was effectively ruined by a blanket issue – it would have reacted.

“Bear in mind this was a safety thing. If they really felt the car was unsafe, they should have told us straight away. If we had a tyre blanket controller failure, like we had in Russia, we would have taken the car off the grid, because we would not have felt safe to start the race.”