This week's Grapevine brings you information fresh from the paddock on: Renault Falling Behind Schedule Tip of the Iceberg

Renault Falling Behind Schedule

The new Renault is, undoubtedly, a good step forward from last season in all areas, but as the team head to Australia, there are going to be a number of questions that still need to be answered.

Revisions to the chassis, gearbox and rear suspension offered useful gains, with further progress from the electronics package threatening to give Renault the best launch control on the grid - at least, until the British Grand Prix. The latest aerodynamic package is also a big leap forward, clearly outperforming the old package, and offering the team some potential to get amongst the front three.

Then again, testing to date has not really gone to plan. Between adverse weather and a series of issues during tests, the team have only covered two thirds of the programme with the new components. This leaves the new aero package only partially tested with the rest of the package, and a lot of effort remaining to identify the best base-line set-up, let alone finish identifying the effect of changes.

The impact of this deficit should not make much difference to the car's absolute speed. So far, the car has proven relatively stable, making it fairly easy to find an effective balance for putting in a hot lap. Unfortunately, although the car seems to be in pretty good shape, unless the balance is spot on, it is prone to wearing tyres at a fearsome rate.

Fixing the wear problem is mostly about experience, so testing time is of vital importance; and until the team have put in the hours to establish the best set-ups, they are compelled to ask Michelin for harder compound tyres.

On the other side of the coin, the more testing time the team devote to looking at setting up the car, the less they can put in to looking at removing the electronics ahead of the British Grand Prix. Being restricted to ten testing days during the season is really not going to expedite matters: indeed, if they get a chance to change it, then traction and launch control will remain for the whole season.

Heading to Australia, Renault are looking at a faster car than last season, but with question marks over both reliability and tyre wear. Failing to take the time to answer those questions properly is not an option, as it is vital to maximise performance early; but, that will be at the cost of performance in the second half of the year. No surprise, the management are having a collective headache, as they try to work out how to make up the lost ground, given only ten days of testing.

Tip of the Iceberg

The recent, public, spate of public letters between the FIA and two prominent teams makes both sides appear churlish and unaware of the danger that the image of the sport could be tarnished, as the media make the most of it. Yet, none of the protagonists involved has ever been noted as anything other than as astute player - as demonstrated by their continued presence in the piranha pool. It makes it seem very odd that, suddenly, they are not only conducting their affairs in front of other teams, but broadcasting them to the world at large.

Clearly, something else is happening here, too. Though quite what is open to interpretation.

At stake are several important issues that are close to the teams. On the surface, as outlined in the original letter, at least Williams and McLaren have genuine concerns that the teams are not being properly considered by the FIA, as it arbitrarily mandates changes for the seasons ahead. Changes that seriously affect how effectively they can compete, are being brought in without so much as a by your leave.

Which leads on to the next factor - how do these changes affect the many technical partners that these teams boast? For example, SUN and HP both invest heavily in McLaren and Williams respectively, and each has a marketing department that makes much of their technological involvement in the sport - real time data acquisition and analysis is big business: banning telemetry scotches that campaign. Banning pit-driver communications deprives Kenwood of its reason for sponsoring McLaren, and supplying them with high technology communications. And, of course, an engine evolution programme that culminates in units that must last six races deprives the engine manufacturers the ability to have more than two evolutions in a season.

Clearly, this has a direct impact on the commercial agreements between the teams and their sponsors, who, in losing the return on their investments, can't be blamed for withdrawing, taking countless millions from the team budget with them. So, the FIA's changes in the technology world can directly affect the commercial viability of front running teams who could lose a significant percentage of their budget.

Then again, there is the whole question of the long term direction the sport is taking, and the ongoing saga of the GPWC taking on the FIA. It's no surprise, then, that the FIA's changes, which openly state they are intended to reduce dependency on manufacturers, raise concerns in that department. Both BMW and DaimlerChrysler (Mercedes), members of the GPWC, will have raised their concerns with the teams they hold influence over, Williams and McLaren. Both have a vested interest, therefore, in being seen to reflect the concerns of their manufacturers. In writing their letter, Williams and McLaren provided a platform to express manufacturer interest in the long term future of the sport.

The only teams principals to publicly object to the Williams and McLaren letter were David Richards of BAR (backed by Honda, who are not part of the GPWC) and Paul Stoddart of Minardi (who have no manufacturer backing). The others were conspicuous by their silence.

Of course, the FIA couldn't see the GPWC making a public case unopposed, and Max Mosley's response apparently confirms the messages conveyed in the original letter, opposing the points directly. Summarising: the teams were not consulted because 'they didn't allow any opportunity'; any budget impact is offset by savings made; and the manufacturers 'can, and will, leave whenever it suits them.'

The parties involved appear happy for the media to run the stories, as it generates even more interest in the sport in the lead up to the season opener. Then again, listening to the farthest out of the conspiracy theories, perhaps there's another agenda here. If Ecclestone is talking about buying back the bank's share of the sport, then the more 'disrepute' it is in, the lower the price will be.

As always in Formula One, what's going on at the surface is misleading, and designed to hide a far larger agenda going on behind the scenes. If nothing else, at least it provides an interesting variation on the continuous tests leading up to the Australian Grand Prix.