We sit down with the FIA president and explore his vision for F1
Limelight-shy but power-driven, FIA President Jean Todt is an infrequent interviewee. But F1 Racing has been able to secure rare access to the boss of world motor racing to glean valuable insights into the future of our sport
INTERVIEW ANTHONY ROWLINSON PORTRAITS ALISTER THORPE
This is a funny old time in Formula 1: a time of transition. F1’s owners, Liberty Media, at the start of their second year in charge, are a welcome fresh face, centred on ever more ambitious marketing and promotional plans. Cars are faster than ever and more powerful than any since the fully boosted mid-80s turbo monsters. In Lewis Hamilton, Formula 1 can boast a genuine global sporting icon – a rival in eminence to the likes of Michael Schumacher and Ayrton Senna before him, while his team, Mercedes, are arguably more brilliant than even the greatest superteams of the past: ’80s Mclaren; ’90s-era Williams; Ferrari at the turn of the millennium; and, latterly, Red Bull.
Yet turbulent undercurrents swirl beneath these superficially alluring waters. There’s trouble brewing over the future engine regulations. The costs of competing in motorsport’s premier echelon are frighteningly elevated. And the contentious issue of ‘who gets what’ from the sport’s commercial rights holders remains a tinderbox in search of a spark – where’s Bernie Ecclestone when you need him?
All told, there’s quite a bit that could kick off this year, both on and off track, and it seems certain that the ‘F1’ tray in FIA President Jean Todt’s desk stacker (he has one) will remain full-to-overflowing all season long, despite his insistence since day one in office that he would never allow Formula 1 matters to consume all of his attention.
So a good time, some might argue, to have a grandee at the head of the table. For Todt, FIA President since October 2009, is steeped in the sport, having authored championshipwinning success first for Peugeot in rallying and sportscars, then, more famously, with Schumacher, Ross Brawn and co at Ferrari.
I AM COMPLETELY IN FAVOUR OF HYBRID TECHNOLOGY BECAUSE WE CANNOT DENY THE EVOLUTION OF THE WORLD. WE MUST HAVE SOME SENSE ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING BEHIND THE GOLDEN GATE OF FORMULA 1
Now 72, he’s pretty much seen and done it all as a competitor, having faced down the likes of Ron Dennis, Flavio Briatore and Frank Williams, before succeeding Max Mosley as motorsport’s top politician, then outlasting even Bernie Ecclestone. The time is surely ripe to gain his insights into the state of the F1 nation.
F1 Racing: Jean, there’s a lot of below-the-radar political manoeuvring going on in Formula 1 at the moment, particularly with regard to future engine regulations and teams’ financial rewards. What’s the FIA’S involvement with all this, as the sport’s governing body?
Jean Todt: We are working right now on the 2021 regulations. Clearly, I think it would be very unfair to destroy all that has been done on the engine [the current V6 turbo-hybrid spec] and to start with a white piece of paper. So, for me, it is essential that we optimise what has been developed and work on what the engines are now and make them better.
What I feel is important for me as president of the FIA is to make sure that what we propose is good for the sport. Of course, I am completely in favour of hybrid technology because we cannot deny the evolution of the world. We must have some sense about what is happening behind the golden gate of Formula 1: pollution, climate change… all that must be taken into consideration, because Formula 1 has to be an ambassador of motorsport.
That means F1 has to be representative. Everybody with a modicum of good sense will agree that we need to take into consideration the evolution of society. We cannot be talking every day about the autonomous car, the connected car, hybrid, fuel cell, electric and then say, “Oh, Formula 1 – the pinnacle of motorsport – let’s forget all that!” That would be foolish, so we must be responsible. So, that’s what I want, but I shouldn’t be involved in the detail.
There is a very selective memory sometimes in F1. A few months ago we all sat together and agreed unanimity on certain adaptations of the engine for the future: the parameters were on the global framework of the actual engine – cheaper, more revs, no fuel consumption limitation, being able to go from the first lap to the last lap at full power, increasing the revs, increasing the fuel flow and improving the noise.
F1R: Are you suggesting that there is no longer unanimity?
JT: I am intending that they respect what they agreed. I am optimistic that we will find a solution and I think we need to be fair with regard to the investments that have been made in F1, and clearly we don’t want to lose anybody. So it would be unfair to try to get some newcomers without respecting those who have been trusting us and who intend fully to stay.
But on the other side, we must have clear rules of the game and have them as soon as we can, because when I’ve been talking with some potential new entrants, they are interested to come in, but they want to know what the rules of the game are. I think that’s a fair request and we need to give that as soon as possible.
F1R: Would those new entrants be manufacturer teams, independent teams or just engine suppliers?
JT: There is something here you must consider: at the moment we have ten teams in Formula 1 and it’s amazing to have four engine suppliers [Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault and Honda] for ten teams. I hardly ever remember having four engine suppliers for ten teams. With the investment required for a new engine, how can you justify it if you’re supplying one or two teams?
By some estimates, Mercedes have invested one billion dollars in their Formula 1 hybrid engine programme, which has helped them dominate the sport since 2013. Taking them on at their own game would require a similar level of financial commitment, and it’s this very fact that prevents most from even contemplating the challenge.
IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO HAVE THE PINNACLE OF MOTORSPORT WHERE 60 TO 70 PER CENT OF THE FIELD ARE STRUGGLING TO SURVIVE
JT: Maybe you will find a sponsor who is happy to pay for the development, whatever the consequences – you won’t find many! Or you find new manufacturers willing to try to supply some teams. Then you must also consider the whole picture of all the FIA championships and see if you can use the engine in other categories of motorsport in order to have more appeal for potential engine producers.
I do not think we will suddenly have a solution that will suit everybody, but I am convinced that we will be able to find a solution in the end. If you have some good sense you will always find solutions. If you are with negative people, you will never find solutions. But I think if we put some sensible people around a table, we will find solutions.
F1R: Some teams and manufacturers have suggested they need a rule framework in place by the middle of this year, in order to allow them to start preparing for 2021. Is that realistic?
JT: On the day we propose rules in agreement with our partner, the commercial rights holder [Liberty], some may agree and some may disagree. Every week our people are meeting the teams and the engine suppliers individually or globally. And we listen to them. And after having listened to everybody and talked with our partner, we will come with some regulations. If we are talking about introducing new engine manufacturers to be ready by 2021, they must know what the rules will be by the end of this year. 2019 and 2020 to make the engine is a fair period.
F1R: How big is the FIA’S role in this process? The other parties seem to be more vocal about their desires… [To whit, the several-times repeated gambit by Ferrari chairman and CEO Sergio Marchionne that The Reds could quit F1, and others’ frequent calls for effective cost caps.]
JT: You can have influence and power – you know if you have influence, you don’t need to say that you have influence – it’s clear! Have you ever seen powerful people saying “I’m powerful!”? It’s obvious. So let’s say I don’t care about that. What I do care about is what the final achievement will be. And the final achievement will correspond to what we want.
F1R: But taking Ferrari as a very high-profile example, surely they are too important for F1 to lose?
JT: I will say each competitor is important to Formula 1, but you know that I’ve had some working relations with Ferrari… [There’s a twinkle in his eye, since Todt is referring to his time with the Scuderia from 1993 to 2009, most notably as F1 team principal when they won five back-to-back drivers’ and constructors’ title doubles from 2000-2004.]
Even before that, Ferrari were the iconic brand for me. From ten years old, I was dreaming in front of a Ferrari. Then I got a position with Ferrari where I was still very attracted… Now I’m in a different position and I do realise the effect of Ferrari and their amazing success. So, we are very happy to have Ferrari as a strong key player in motor racing but I don’t feel that Ferrari would be what they are if they had not also enjoyed the benefit of being involved in motor racing. Again there is speculation they may leave. That is their choice. They are free – but I definitely hope they will not leave, although it can always happen.
In a way that’s why we want to reduce costs because to a company like Ferrari, racing should not be ‘spending’. It should be at least equal and even with revenue. That would be more healthy than it has been over the years, when there has been too much spending. That often puts teams in difficulty. There are six or seven teams who are struggling in Formula 1. So it is not acceptable to have the pinnacle of motorsport where 60 to 70 per cent of the field are struggling to survive.
F1R: And as the regulator, do you think it’s appropriate that Ferrari still have certain privileges, such as the right of technical veto in F1?
JT: Ferrari were once the only team supplying engine and chassis against other teams which were all powered by Ford [Todt is referring to ’70s-era F1], so, at this time it was decided that being away from what we now call ‘the Silicon Valley of motorsport’, they needed some protection. Now I feel I am not in favour of it, because times have changed.
That’s part of the answer. As for the second part… is it normal that Leonardo Dicaprio gets more money than a TV actor? Yes, that’s life: the better you are, the more money you
get… well, you should. [Todt grins at his witticism.] In this activity, yes. So it’s normal they get more money. It used to be that they got more money with the best results. Now they get more money with among the best results.
F1R: Will you be involved in Liberty’s commercial discussions with the teams about a post-2020 financial structure?
JT: Clearly, the FIA will still be the regulator and legislator. The commercial rights holder is dealing with the commercial rights, revenues and expenses specific to the teams. But there is a good understanding between the commercial rights holder and the FIA, which means we are informed about what they do and we are happy to have them included in what we do.
A successor to the Ecclestone-mosley Siamese twin this is not, but clearly Liberty and the FIA seem ready to present a united front in any power-play against F1’s grandee pair – Mercedes and Ferrari.
F1R: The initial outcry regarding the introduction of the halo seems to have died down somewhat, but are there any alternative head-protection solutions in the pipeline?
JT: I knew we would talk about this! Let me find a letter [Todt shuffles his papers] On 16 December 2015, I got a letter that was signed by Jenson Button, Sebastian Vettel and Alex Wurz [on behalf of the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association], urging us to decide on head protection for the drivers. And I said that “we are there also to listen.” So immediately we asked our technical people what they could come up with, as a priority. In July, the GPDA said: “Don’t be weak and please respect what we have asked you on safety.”
So, we committed to take into consideration their request and the halo is the result. And now… you know, we love F1, but I hate this part of F1. Because, for me, the biggest asset in life is loyalty and respect for what you have undertaken. And we did respect that, but some have forgotten that.
For me, the halo is no problem but I hoped we would have had more support from everybody – the fans, the media – for something that is for safety. I’m amazed to hear some people say “Okay, motor racing has to be dangerous.” Why should we not protect all life – not just in Formula 1. In Formula E, for example [in which series the halo has been introduced for its ‘Generation 2’ car] I did not hear one complaint. I did not hear any complaint from Formula 2, or from Formula 3 [both of which will use the halo this season]. And we are going to implement it as soon as possible in Formula 4.
F1R: But there has been some very heavy criticism. For example, Toto Wolff said he’d like to take a chainsaw to it…
JT: All I will say is that I love F1 and I think everyone in this business of motor racing should love F1. I don’t see the value in public criticism, which is not good for the sport. It’s in all our interests to have the best product available and to have a healthy Formula 1: teams; manufacturers; sponsors; media; FIA; the commercial rights holder. We should all want to have the most healthy business ever.
And so many good things have happened – like last week I was finally able to present the single-seater pyramid from Formula 4 to Formula 1. The good things create more interest for me than controversy about the halo, grid girls or the second-rate problems.
F1R: What about the talk of growing the F1 calendar to maybe 25 races a season within a couple of years?
JT: At the moment we have 21 races and the calendar looks very good: the French Grand Prix is back; the German Grand Prix is back and we hear about potential new races in Argentina – I would love to see a race there! Fangio, Reutemann… a lot of heroes of motor racing have been from Argentina. Then Vietnam? I would be
FOR ME, THE HALO IS NO PROBLEM BUT I HOPED WE WOULD HAVE HAD MORE SUPPORT FROM EVERYBODY – THE FANS, THE MEDIA – FOR SOMETHING THAT IS FOR SAFETY
happy to be in Asia and to bring F1 to developing countries would very good. If it can be put together, why not?
F1R: You’re now in your third and final term of office as FIA President. What do you still want to achieve?
JT: I think we have done quite a lot but there is always a margin for doing things better and that’s what we want to do, in terms of positioning. One of the strengths of the FIA is its two pillars: motorsport, where we are the regulator representing 150 countries; then we have automobile associations in about the same number of countries, who are there to facilitate the life of road users around the world.
I have been honoured to be appointed and now re-appointed by the UN Secretary General as a special envoy for road safety, which is for me a unique opportunity to exploit and optimise those two responsibilities. And I’m very concerned about a lot of things in society – 1.3 million people die on the road every year; 50 million people are injured. Pollution. Congestion. Traffic. We all lose so much time every day in traffic. And we should not be used to seeing people dying on the roads. We should not be used to seeing people hurt on the road. We should not be used to having so much congestion on the road. These are the most fascinating things and I have the privilege to be part of them.
And if I go back to motor racing, Formula 1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, but now we need to make sure there’s a healthy pyramid below it. There has to be a synergy, because for me motor racing is not only a show. It has also to be a laboratory for what is happening on the road.
All of these things are, for me, absolutely essential, but they’re also challenging. So it seems like there is quite a lot to do.… And I clearly want to leave my eventual successor the best FIA I can. We must make sure that the end change is constructive – and that’s what we will try to do.