Wolfgang Durheimer’s interview with Autocar’s Jim Holder You can read it here has got social media buzzing once again, the VAG Motorsport boss making three statements that have got the, as always, polarised motorsport media squabbling (I’ll happily put my hands up here as part of that squabble).
The interview focuses yet again, on the subject of the potential for VAG to enter Formula One. But wait, before you reach for the bottle of Scotch and Paracetamol, this time Holder gets some real meat on the bones from a proper decision maker.
Not ‘paddock sources’, not ‘informed sources’, and certainly not Eddie Jordan, but a senior executive of the company directly concerned with the question whose job not is to make the case to the Board on motorsport priorities. Sensible people on all sides of the debate then should read his points very carefully.
He provides real balance, outlining two key reasons why VAG will not be entering F1 at present: Ownership issues (for F1) and the lack of a stable rule book and a very considerable counterpoint (of which more later).
The latter issue warrants real consideration because here, more than anywhere else, lies the true reason why VAG have not made the move in the recent past. Here too lies the basis for the huge level of antagonism between senior VAG management and F1, or more specifically Bernie Ecclestone.
In the days of the early development of the Global Race Engine concept VAG were an early and enthusiastic adopter, seeing the opportunity for an engine architecture that could be used as the basis for a multi platform motorsport effort whilst retaining real relevance to their road car product range.
VAG’s programme went a long way down the line, but the potential F1 element was derailed by a political move, directly influenced by Ecclestone, to adopt a different ‘spec’ architecture. VAG were not amused, a huge amount of R&D had effectively been wasted, and from there we can draw a direct line to the statements from Wolfgang Durheimer today.
The other issue is, if anything, more pressing, because here lies the real oozing sore at the heart of F1, the ‘will they, won’t they’ running story about the current owners of F1 CVC Capital Partners and their representative on Earth Bernie Ecclestone.
CVC has no fans in the motorsport world, the transfer of ownership to the company marked a sea change in fiscal priorities in a very damaging way indeed, a considerable reinforcement of the infamous ‘bubble’ around the “pinnacle of the sport” and further constant threats to some of the most historic, beloved and relevant venues for Grand Prix racing.
Ecclestone’s time as a constructive servant of the sport was done quite some time ago, I’ll ignore his recent ramblings as either confused (worrying) or self-serving (perish the thought!).
To those who continue to parrot statements like “Formula One wouldn’t be the sport it is today without Bernie” I’d add this – The UK wouldn’t be a free nation without Spitfires and Hurricanes but I wouldn’t want them in the front line in the 21st century.
And here, in black and white, on the record, is the spokesman for the biggest corporate target that F1 has, stating clearly that these are the issues that keep them away. The ball it seems is in F1, and the FIA’s court, fundamentally not in VAG’s.
But Durheimer doesn’t end it there, he goes on to say that racing in the FIA WEC “costs more than running an F1 team for Audi and Porsche.”
And adds: “The technology is greater than that in F1 and the levels of investment are therefore greater.”
As with all numbers the devil is likely in the detail, but if anyone knows the truth Herr Durheimer is likely to be pretty close to top of the list, his points need to be listened to, understood and respected.
When asked if that was sustainable, he added: “Probably not, but the series is in good shape. I expect that, in time, LMP1 cars will have less complex content, bringing the price down and attracting more manufacturers. But, for now, the regulations are where the competitors want them.”
Take time to think about that last sentence, Audi, Toyota and Porsche all played a full and very active part in the development of the Equivalency of Technology ruleset developed by the FIA and ACO, they have consistently played ball with developments with that ruleset and we have been treated to the stunning results on track, racing that is simply world class.
The key here is relevance, In F1 the manufacturers involved do so because of its unparalleled marketing punch, principally the imagery of their product on global TV, and their ability to activate that across all other media. VAG chose a different course, and to explain that I’ll defer to another senior VAG executive, head of Audi Sport Dr Wolfgang Ullrich.
These were the words he chose to deliver from the podium at the end of year event for Audi Sport in Munich last December:
“Every year we are asked why Audi Sport isn’t in Formula 1, I’m tired of it. We have made the decision to stay in LMP1 in the FIA WEC and it was obviously the right one. This is pure bred racing with direct relevance to the technology transfer that can help development and sales of Audi’s road car range.”
That by the way was the second consecutive year that a senior Audi Executive had said much the same thing at the same event! It was certainly not indicative of the much repeated ‘paddock sources’ story that Audi was close to buying Red Bull F1.
Let’s look at just one barometer for the success of Audi’s corporate, technical and motorsport priorities.
In the year of Audi’s first win at Le Mans, 2000, the company produced around 649,000 cars. In the same year Mercedes Benz’s car division produced c.1.15 million, close to double the amount!
Fast forward to 2014, the last year for which we currently have published figures and Mercedes’ production total had shot up by around 50% to c.1.7 million, amazing growth.
Audi though had outpaced that growth very considerably, their total now matched, or even exceeded their sworn market rivals with c.1.74 million cars produced – a near 150% growth over the same period.
There doesn’t appear to be much wrong with their corporate strategy on that front!
So why are these stories continuing to emerge?
It’s simple really, leverage. Leverage by some inside the F1 paddock to press for change in their own interests (Red Bull take a bow) and yes leverage by Audi to persuade the sportscar rule makers not to take their continued participation for granted. Playing politics is not exclusive to the F1 paddock!
The reactions from both sides of the sporting ‘family’ has been interesting, and on the basis of Durheimer’s latest statements, will continue to be interesting.
Audi continue to profess that they are happy with the ruleset, and very happy with the returns they get from their sporting investments.
VW-Gate put a substantial wrinkle in VAG’s plans, but despite that, for the moment at least, they continue to be active in the FIA WEC (with two brands in LMP1 and one in GTE) in GT3 racing (with four brands!) in the DTM, across the globe in one make racing (with three brands) in World Rally and Rallycross and on two wheels with Ducati in both Moto GP and World Superbikes.
This is not a company that doesn’t have motorsport on its radar, and decision makers and commentators on the sport that ignore the points made by their decision makers are making a big mistake.
GG
