We are in for a fascinating weekend in Germany as we look to see whether Red Bull has its nose in front on all circuits now or whether Silverstone flattered their car.
But behind the scenes in Germany will be very interesting as well as the latest developments in the ongoing row over next year’s rules come into play.
Today’s development is a series of letters from FIA president Max Mosley to the Formula One Teams Association, to the non-FOTA teams; Williams and Force India and to the three new teams; USF1, Manor and Campos.
To the non-FOTA teams Mosley emphasises that they are part of the decision making process because,
“No change can be made to the published regulations without the agreement of all confirmed entrants. As a result, changes to the 2010 regulations require your agreement and consent.”
This gives this long running saga a new twist. in June Mosley was all for the FOTA teams signing up for 2010 and then changing the rules from within. Instead FOTA announced a breakaway series and forced Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone around the table to agree a peace deal. As far as FOTA were concerned the deal agreed in Paris was for them to go away and sort out the rules for 2010 among themselves, which would then be ratified by the FIA. This meant the death knell of the budget cap, the very reason why the new teams signed up.
But now they find that it will not be as simple as that. So at the meeting in Germany this weekend we will have three new teams plus two existing ones who signed up for a £40 million budget cap, asking the FOTA teams exactly how much they propose to slash budgets by and how they propose to police cost control.
What will enrage the FOTA teams is that potentially you could have the three new teams, who have never turned a wheel in F1 and who’s ability to stand the heat in this particular kitchen is yet to be proven, able to veto rules which FOTA has devoted thousands of hours developing.
My sense during Silverstone weekend was that the new teams didn’t want a fight with FOTA and just wanted to get on with it.
Here they are being set on a potential collision course because if the costs are significantly higher than £40 million with no real prospect of them being able to survive and prosper then they will find it hard to agree.