Formula One boss Bernard Ecclestone ushered team managers into his trailer at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. Nearby, mechanics tended to an array of million-dollar racing cars.

It was 10 a.m. on a June day in 2005 as fans filed into their seats for the U.S. Grand Prix. Two days earlier, a Michelin & Cie.-made tire on Toyota team driver Ralf Schumacher’s car had burst on turn 13 and the auto smashed into a wall at 175 miles per hour, Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its December issue.

The tiremaker said it couldn’t rule out more accidents.

As the managers gathered around, Ecclestone called Max Mosley, president of Formula One’s ruling body, the Federation Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA), at home in Monaco in a last-minute attempt to persuade him to alter the racetrack layout so the grand prix could proceed smoothly.

Mosley was unmoved, according to Paul Stoddart, then owner of the now-defunct Minardi team, who was in the trailer. He wouldn’t change the rules.

With the 1 p.m. start nearing, the crowd swelling toward 120,000 and a public relations disaster looming, Ecclestone lost his temper and swore at Mosley, by Stoddart’s account. As if on cue, irate fans hurled beer cans onto the racetrack after 14 of the 20 cars withdrew from the race.

“It’s the first time in all the years I’ve known Bernard when he hasn’t been in control,” Stoddart says.

Total Control

For his part, Ecclestone now says Mosley was “probably right” to stop the race because the FIA president could have faced a murder charge if another crash on the same turn caused a fatality.

Total control has been the hallmark of Ecclestone’s three- decade reign over the world’s most profitable and popular auto- racing series.

As chief executive officer of London-based Formula One Management Ltd. -- or simply “F1 Supremo” as the papers style him -- Ecclestone transformed a niche series largely confined to Europe into a complexly structured, $4 billion commercial enterprise that brings in sales of $1 billion a year, stages races in 18 countries and attracts about 50 million TV viewers on an average race Sunday.

These days, Ecclestone is struggling to keep his grip on the business.

Bribery Case

At 81, he’s under pressure on several fronts. Prosecutors in Germany have named him as a Beschuldigter, or suspect, in a bribery case linked to the sale of Formula One six years ago. Ecclestone, who hasn’t been charged, is scheduled to testify in a Munich court today and tomorrow.

In addition, race teams such as Ferrari and McLaren, which complain that Ecclestone is failing to keep Formula One up with the times, are considering putting on a breakaway series that would weaken F1. The teams’ contractual obligations, including staying in F1, expire after 2012.

The greatest threat of all to Ecclestone’s dominance could come from a looming takeover bid.

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. and the Agnelli family’s Exor SpA (EXO) want to buy the 63.4 percent of Formula One owned by London- based buyout firm CVC Capital Partners Ltd. through its Jersey, Channel Islands-based holding company Delta Topco Ltd.

The would-be buyers are pushing ahead despite News Corp.’s run-ins with U.K. authorities over a phone-hacking scandal involving one of its newspapers, according to two people with knowledge of the situation.

‘Bloody Enormous’

CVC, which manages $44 billion, has invested in Formula One and 53 other companies, including luggage maker Samsonite International SA and Spanish road-toll operator Abertis Infraestructuras SA.

CVC executives declined to comment on the Formula One takeover interest, referring calls to Ecclestone, who owns a 5.3 percent stake in F1. He says it would take a “bloody enormous” bid for CVC to sell.

“We’ve been building it -- more audience, more income,” Ecclestone says. Ultimately, he says, CVC Managing Director Donald Mackenzie will decide. “He’s the guy who will turn the lights on and off,” Ecclestone says. “I have very few shares, so it’s nothing to do with me.”

Under CVC’s ownership, Ecclestone says he has retained complete autonomy over management even without the full control of the commercial rights he had in the late 1990s.

‘No Angel’

All the same, his holding is now smaller than that of his former wife Slavica. The mother of his daughters Tamara, 27, and Petra, 23, controls 8.5 percent of the business through a family trust, Bambino Holdings Ltd.

Slavica, a 6-foot-2-inch (188-centimeter) Croatian who stands a foot taller than Ecclestone, was granted a divorce in the U.K. in an out-of-court settlement in 2009 after 24 years of marriage. Among several other owners, the administrators of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (LEHMQ), which went bankrupt in 2008, control 15.3 percent of F1.

The son of a fisherman, Bernard Charles Ecclestone was born into the Great Depression in Suffolk, England.

During World War II, he used money earned delivering newspapers to buy buns to sell at school for a 25 percent profit, according to No Angel: The Secret Life of Bernie Ecclestone by Tom Bower (Faber & Faber, 2011). Ecclestone left school at 16 and built up a secondhand motorbike and car business in south London.

Key Commercial Insight

Ecclestone came to Formula One at age 28 in an era when race cars were not plastered with sponsor logos and the drivers included a Spanish marquis and a Thai prince. He bought two cars from the England-based Connaught Engineering team and in a brief stint as a driver failed to qualify for the Monaco Grand Prix.

After buying three-time champion Jack Brabham’s team in 1971, Ecclestone went on to lead the organization that represented the racing outfits, then called the Formula One Constructors Association, and in 1981 won control of the sport’s television rights from the FIA.

That was Ecclestone’s key commercial insight, one that would set an example for the English Premier League in soccer: to see that Formula One’s future lay in selling TV rights.

By then, his first marriage, to telephone operator Ivy Bamford, had ended in divorce. Ecclestone met Slavica, his second wife, at the 1982 Italian Grand Prix in Monza, where she was working as a model. They married in 1985.

By that time, Ecclestone was well on his way to becoming one of Britain’s richest men. In 2004, he would sell what was at the time London’s most expensive residence to steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal for 57 million pounds ($90 million).

TV Rights

In 1993, Ecclestone helped install Mosley, then his legal adviser, as FIA president. Two years later, he acquired F1’s commercial rights, including television rights, from FIA for 15 years. He later extended the agreement until 2110.

From 1999 to 2001, he sold off 75 percent of the business for a combined $2 billion to Morgan Grenfell Private Equity Ltd., Hellman & Friedman LLC and Leo Kirch’s German media group. Following heart surgery in 1999, Ecclestone says, he transferred 25 percent to the family trust to mitigate his heirs’ inheritance tax liabilities.

Through it all, Ecclestone survived a number of hazards, including the collapse of Kirch’s empire in 2002 -- eventually brokering a deal for CVC to buy the Formula One business from Kirch creditor Bayerische Landesbank -- and a breakaway threat by race teams in 2005.

‘We Challenge Him’

Today, more than half a century after Ecclestone’s first foray into Formula One, questions about his future have overtaken talk of his past successes.

The teams he once ruled grumble that his business model is outdated, prizing TV rights, which bring in about $500 million a year, over promoting an Internet presence that could attract a new fan base.

By not aggressively promoting the series in markets such as China and the U.S., where Formula One is less popular than elsewhere, Ecclestone is failing to attract new audiences, says Martin Whitmarsh, McLaren Racing Ltd. CEO and chairman of the Formula One Teams Association.

“The way F1 is consumed is going to change over the next few years,” Williams team Chairman Adam Parr said during a question-and-answer session with fans in June. “It’s time we challenge him.”

In addition to TV rights, F1 revenue comes from fees charged to race promoters -- often the cities or countries where the circuits are located.

‘We’re Poorly Paid’

Those fees amounted to $535 million in 2010, according to London-based industry monitor Formula Money. The teams, which get about half of the $1 billion in total annual revenue, feel shortchanged by Ecclestone, says Mark Jenkins, a professor of business strategy at England’s Cranfield University and co- author of Performance at the Limit: Business Lessons From Formula 1 Motor Racing (Cambridge, 2009).

“Let’s be clear: We’re poorly paid,” says Vijay Mallya, the billionaire owner of the Force India F1 team, as he holds court in the team trailer across the water from his 312-foot (95- meter) yacht Indian Empress at the European Grand Prix in Valencia in June.

The chairman of Bangalore-based United Breweries Holdings Ltd. (UB), which controls liquor, beer and airline companies, says he’s delving into his personal fortune to keep his Force India team going. A holding company Mallya co-owns bankrolled Force India’s $63 million loss in 2009, according to team filings.

“Many of the teams feel that in a sense he stole the business from them,” Jenkins says of Ecclestone. “They were the show, and he effectively appropriated that show.”

New Threat

While Ecclestone rejects such accusations, saying he took financial risks when teams didn’t, there’s talk once again among some teams of a breakaway series. In 2005, Ecclestone promised Ferrari an annual $50 million sweetener to sign new Formula One terms, thereby dividing a rebel group of teams that were plotting secession, according to Bower’s biography.

Ecclestone scoffs at the new threat. Formula One is hardly unknown, he says, slipping into a playful sarcasm. “We’re known worldwide, so I suppose we must have done something right.” He derides the idea that teams have a real chance to mount a breakaway or unseat him. “I don’t know where they meet -- probably Starbucks or somewhere,” he says. “These are nice coffee chats.”

Bower says Formula One is definitely a healthy business. “It’s an amazing moneymaking machine,” he says.

‘A Bribe?’

The series generated earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of $428 million in 2009, according to filings by Delta 3 UK, a unit of Formula One holding company Delta Topco Ltd.

CVC sealed the deal after borrowing $2.5 billion in 2005 to acquire Bayerische Landesbank’s 48 percent holding and most of the Ecclestone family’s 25 percent stake. As part of the transaction, Ecclestone re-acquired a 5.3 percent stake.

Former FIA President Mosley says quick thinking has kept Ecclestone in a dominant position. “If he went into a revolving door behind you, he would come out in front,” Mosley says.

Nonetheless, Ecclestone’s hand is weaker than it used to be. His one-time ally Mosley stepped down as FIA president in 2009, and Ecclestone doesn’t have the same rapport with his successor, former Ferrari team boss Jean Todt, Jenkins says.

On another front, German prosecutors said earlier this year they were investigating suspicions -- Verdachte -- that Ecclestone bribed former Bayerische Landesbank risk manager Gerhard Gribkowsky in the sale of Formula One to CVC. “A bribe?” Ecclestone says. “You shouldn’t believe all you read, you know.”

‘Very Far-Fetched’

Ecclestone said he was interviewed by prosecutors in April. He declined to comment further.

Gribkowsky has been charged with breach of trust, accepting bribes and tax evasion. Rainer Bruessow, Gribkowsky’s lawyer in the case, which went on trial in October, says the allegations against his client are “manufactured and very far-fetched.”

CVC said in a statement that it isn’t aware of a payment to Gribkowsky in relation to the buyout.

As vulnerable as Ecclestone is, Formula One suitor News Corp. (NWSA) is embroiled in a phone-hacking scandal in the U.K. that has caused it to shut down the News of the World newspaper, which has admitted accessing the voice mail accounts of celebrities and others.

Amid the controversy, News Corp. announced it was shelving a £7.8 billion offer for the 61 percent of pay-television broadcaster British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc (BSY) it doesn’t own. In July, BSkyB won the rights to broadcast the entire F1 series for seven years from March 2012 onward.

The U.K. sideshow is diverting News Corp.’s attention away from its F1 bid, says Tim Westcott, an analyst for media consulting firm IHS Screen Digest in London.

James Murdoch

A person familiar with the situation counters that the bid was very much alive as of mid-October. That individual says News Corp. Deputy Chief Operating Officer James Murdoch, the 39-year- old son of CEO Rupert, and Exor chief executive John Elkann, 35, are actively courting racing-team owners and working on a 5- to 10-year business plan for Formula One.

News Corp., whose pay-television channels already air Formula One races in Germany and the U.S., faces another obstacle, Westcott says: It would have to agree to a raft of conditions to assure European Union regulators that it’s not going to monopolize the television rights. Alice Macandrew, a spokeswoman for News Corp. in London, declined to comment, as did Exor spokesman Richard Holloway.

Socialite Daughters

Today, Ecclestone continues to run Formula One from a glass-fronted building he bought in 1985.

He’s usually in his office overlooking London’s Hyde Park by 9 a.m., sometimes lunches not far away in Knightsbridge at the restaurant in the Emporio Armani store and shuns nightlife unless it’s to turn out for a party hosted by his high-spending socialite daughters. In August, Petra’s wedding featured live performances by the Black Eyed Peas.

Ecclestone conducts business with a mobile phone, whose ring tone is from the soundtrack of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, and jets to races in his own Dassault Falcon 7X. According to Bower, he travels with a briefcase full of cash. “If I do, it’s my own money,” Ecclestone says.

As the mid-morning sun beats down on the Valencia race circuit in June, Ecclestone sits at a desk in an air-conditioned mobile office. Soundproofing turns the roar of cars speeding around city streets at 180 miles per hour during a practice session into a hum.

‘I Could Just Walk’

Ecclestone says he’s still the best person to run F1. “I travel all over the world, and when I shake hands with people they know a deal’s a deal, and that gives me a lot of credibility,” he says. “It takes a lot to build that up.”

With others threatening to take the wheel from him, he doesn’t rule out simply pulling over and retiring. “I could just walk out,” he says.

What he won’t do, he says, is help new owners find a successor: “That would be like Frank Sinatra looking for another singer.”

The trial of a former Bayerische Landesbank manager over what prosecutors say were $44 million in bribes to facilitate the sale of the bank’s stake in Formula One racing may shed light on business practices at the world’s most- watched racing series.

Gerhard Gribkowsky, 53, was charged in July with accepting bribes, breach of trust and tax evasion. Prosecutors claim he received the bribes as part of the 2005 sale of BayernLB’s 47 percent stake in Formula One to CVC Capital Partners Ltd.

The trial began today in Munich is scheduled to feature testimony from Formula One Chief Executive Officer Bernard Ecclestone, who is also being investigated, and CVC managing partner Donald Mackenzie. The criminal trial is one of several lawsuits stemming from the transaction in Germany and England.

“It’s going to be fascinating,” Tom Cannon, a professor at England’s Liverpool University who has researched the way Formula One and other sports are financed, said. “Ecclestone has found ways of resolving conflicts before they got to court; this time, he hasn’t managed to.”

BayernLB acquired the Formula One stake following the 2002 bankruptcy of Leo Kirch’s media group. Gribkowsky, BayernLB’s chief risk officer at the time, quickly clashed with the Formula One chief and sued him in a London court over corporate governance rules Ecclestone changed to limit the lender’s influence.

$50 Million Demand

Ecclestone wanted to push BayernLB out and saw a chance when CVC signaled its interest, prosecutors said in the indictment. Gribkowsky demanded $50 million from Ecclestone as a reward for consenting to the deal and threatened to disclose possible tax violation by a trust run by Ecclestone’s wife at the time, prosecutors said.

Both men agreed on a plan that funneled $44 million to Gribkowsky through sham contracts and off-shore companies, according to prosecutors. Gribkowsky then single-handedly negotiated the purchase agreement without seeking alternative bids, prosecutors said. BayernLB’s share was sold for 840 million euros.

Rainer Bruessow, Gribkowsky’s lawyer, told reporters before the hearing began that the allegation will collapse and the trial will end with an acquittal.

CVC had no knowledge of any payment to Gribkowsky, the company said in an e-mailed statement last week.

Nov. 9 Testimony

Ecclestone, who has denied any wrongdoing, is scheduled to testify Nov. 9 and 10. His attorney Sven Thomas didn’t reply to an e-mail seeking comment.

Because Ecclestone didn’t want to pick up the tab for the bribes, Gribkowsky set up another scam to funnel money from BayernLB to the Formula One chief, according to the indictment. The bank manager signed a sham contract under which BayernLB had to pay Ecclestone a kickback of $41.4 million and another $25 million to his then wife’s trust, prosecutors claim.

For BayernLB, which received a 10 billion-euro ($13.9 billion) government bailout following losses on U.S. subprime mortgages, the trial is one of several legal issues. In June, Munich prosecutors charged the lender’s former management with breach of trust over the 2007 purchase of Hypo Alpe-Adria Bank International AG.

“A quick solution of the Gribkowsky case is of particular importance to BayernLB to prevent it from leading a permanent multifront war with its owners, clients, bank supervisors and EU authorities,” said Bernd Rudolph, an finance professor at Munich’s Ludwig-Maximilians-University.

Auditors

BayernLB had its internal audit department check the bank’s processes during the Formula One sale and also asked an external auditor to verify the sales price, BayernLB spokesman Matthias Luecke said. Neither review found any wrongdoing, he said.

A day before he was arrested in January, Gribkowsky told prosecutors he was aware of the fact that he didn’t “really have a right” to the money he received and that he was “just lucky,” according to a memo by Munich prosecutors obtained by Bloomberg News.

His plan was to use the money to help children with cancer, the document cites him as saying. Ecclestone initially offered him even $80 million, Gribkowsky said. Prosecutor told him his claims were “implausible,” according to the memo.

Gribkowsky has been in custody since Jan. 5. The court has scheduled 26 days of trial and about 40 witnesses have been called to testify.

Formula 1's delivery of thrilling grands prix in 2011 may owe much to the new rules introduced this year, but detailed mid-season analysis of exactly what has boosted overtaking has revealed that it is not DRS that has been the sole reason for more spectacular racing.

The sport's leading figures took a bold step this year in introducing a series of changes to spice up the action – with overtaking being a key area where improvements were sought.

Alongside the return of Pirelli, which arrived with an aggressive intention to make races better via their tire compound choice, F1 also embraced the return of KERS and the introduction of the radical adjustable rear wing. While the rules have been a step into the unknown, the initial impression is that DRS has been a huge success, with Nico Rosberg telling AUTOCAR earlier this year it was probably the best idea in F1 history. On the other hand, some, like 1997 World Champion Jacques Villeneuve, have argued that the changes make F1 artificial and therefore a turn-off.

So, how successful have they really been? Statistics released by Mercedes-Benz ahead of the midway point of the season have now offered some insight into just what factors have made the biggest impact in improving the show.

In the first nine races of this season, there have been 623 overtaking moves in total – a figure which takes into account passes by the fastest cars on the slowest three teams, but discounts moves on the first lap or those due to damage.

Discounting the moves by the fastest teams on the slowest, DRS has accounted for 29 percent of passing maneuvers in 2011. DRS moves have outnumbered "normal" passes on four occasions: Shanghai, Istanbul, Barcelona and Valencia.

Significantly, DRS's impact has varied from circuit to circuit, and in direct correlation with its positioning on each circuit. At Monaco and Silverstone, where the DRS was on the short pit and Wellington straights, respectively, it accounted for just eight passes in total.

At Istanbul, a track notoriously difficult to pass on, the DRS zone was located on the long back straight on the run down to Turn 12 – and it consequently led to 50 passes, the most of any single circuit.

The figures therefore tend to suggest that while DRS has aided overtaking in general, it has not had an overbearing influence. Silverstone, for example, witnessed just six DRS moves but produced a fraught and ever-changing race right up until the checkered flag. Istanbul meanwhile produced 50 DRS-assisted overtakes, but was no more memorable.

Analysis of the new Pirelli rubber provides similar conclusions. While much has been vaunted about the importance of fresh rubber, on average 54 percent of overtaking has been done when the tire ages had a difference of less than five laps – DRS-assisted or not.

At high-wear circuits like Barcelona, the figure is slightly skewed as "old" tires – with more than five laps difference – accounted for 69 percent of maneuvers. In Montreal and Silverstone, however, tire wear – directly at least – had a much diminished impact.

The statistics therefore suggest that while DRS and the new Pirelli rubber may have contributed to overtaking, they have not become too important, or too decisive. Normal passes are not just still possible, but actually more frequent.

The data also suggests that each circuit's individual characteristics can have a heavy influence on the action. Turkey and China, with their long straights, produced a glut of overtaking, while the narrow confines of Monaco dented such ambitions.

At troublesome circuits like Valencia, yet to produce a truly gripping race, the new F1 initiatives have helped the show. But they have not artificially altered the game beyond recognition – Canada still produces great overtaking opportunities and great races, Valencia does not.

That variation is key to the sport's future, and suggests that – for now at least – the powers that be have got the new rules entirely correct.

Bernard Ecclestone has admitted for the first time that he did pay money to banker Gerhard Gribkowsky - but says he only did so because he was 'threatened' over other financial matters.

Gribkowsky was charged this week for having allegedly accepted a $44 million bribe in relation to the sale of F1 by the Bayerische Landesbank.

Ecclestone has been investigated by German prosecutors over his role in the matter, and speaking to <>The Daily Telegraph he said that he did pay over money - but only because Gribkowsky threatened to expose some of his financial dealings to the Inland Revenue.

"The Inland Revenue obviously had to check everything," Ecclestone said. "It took five years going through that. I didn't deal with it. The trust had to show it was correct.

"The taxation people in England at the time were in the middle of settling everything with the trust and the last thing you need is for them to start thinking something different. He Gribkowsky was shaking me down and I didn't want to take a risk. Nothing was wrong with the trust. Nothing at all.

"He never said to me if you don't give me this I will say that. He left me with the fact that could he do it or not."

Although Ecclestone insists he had nothing to hide from the Inland Revenue, he elected to pay Gribkowsky because any investigations would have cost him money.

Ecclestone said he consulted his lawyers for advice on what to do.

"They said 'I tell you what would happen, the Revenue would assess you and you would have to defend it, because you could defend it, and you would be three years in court and it would cost you a fortune. Better pay'."

He added: "I never bribed anybody or paid any money to anybody in connection with the company. I got five per cent for the sale of the company. Bayerische Landesbank approved the sale and approved the commission, which was cheap.

"I should have got more because for that sort of deal a bank would have charged a lot more. There were no secrets."

Bernard Ecclestone is Formula One's CEO (F1). Bernard is not everyone's favorite. When you have the power that he has, you're not going to have a lot of friends.

A trawlerman's son, the former motorcycle and parts salesman has done well for himself, growing up with essentially nothing and becoming a billionaire and maybe the most powerful man in motorsports.

Bernard has had some health issues in the past but stated early this year: "I'm working till I drop." He may have more than health issues to be concerned about.

Rumors have surfaced in the past regarding shady dealings in and around Bernard. Now, another report from two German newspapers have come out stating Bernard Ecclestone paid a $50 million bribe regarding the sale of F1's commercial rights five years ago. This story first popped up at the beginning of the year.

Earlier this month, a German banker (Gerhard Gribkowsky) - who was formerly the head of the F1 holding company - was arrested on suspicion of corruption, tax fraud, bribery and breach of trust after "two consultancy contracts totaling $50 million" appeared in two of his accounts in Austria. At this point, according to German law, a tribunal will now decide whether he will stand trial. Gribkowsky could face up to 10 years in jail.

The newspapers, Stern and Suddeutsche Zeitung, refer to 'concrete evidence' to corroborate the claims that Bernie bribed the bank.

CVC Capital Partners - who owns majority interest in F1 - is detaching themselves from the allegations saying: "CVC confirms that it has no knowledge of, nor any involvement in any payment to Mr. Gribkowsky or anyone connected with him in relation to CVC's acquisition of F1."

Bernard, who continues to deny any involvement, says the prosecutors and newspapers have it all wrong concerning the accusations stating: "It's absolute nonsense; I don't even know why I would have given him money."

So is Bernard in trouble? That's a good question. The German prosecutors say that Bernard remains under investigation. But it remains to be seen and I'm not sure if he'll actually be involved in the legal proceedings; therefore, it would seem that Bernard could dodge another bullet.

Bernard didn't become as powerful as he has without knowing more than most. When the proverbial s*** hits the fan, he always comes out smelling like a rose.

There's been talk of CVC looking into the possibilities of selling F1 and controversies like this may hasten the process.

Maybe Bernard will call it quits and take the money and run … figuratively, if not literally. On the other hand, Bernard said a week or so ago that if the price was right, he might buy back F1.Yes, he really said it. All of this still makes you wonder.

Q. This issue arose shortly before the Spanish Grand Prix. Was it initiated by the FIA or did it come from an F1 team?

A: The matter was initiated by the FIA when facts concerning some quite extreme, and hitherto unseen, engine mapping began to emerge. We were concerned that exhaust tailpipes were being positioned and engine maps created with the primary objective of improving in the aerodynamic performance of the car. Prior to that it had been assumed that any aerodynamic benefits were incidental to the primary purpose of the engine and its exhausts, i.e. that of generating torque.

Q. Why did you decide to act?

A: We decided to act as, not only did we consider such extreme mapping to be arguably illegal, but also if such freedom was left unchecked it would result in the teams incurring significant further development costs during the season.

Q. Is the off-throttle blown diffuser illegal under the 2011 technical regulations?

A: We certainly consider them to be questionable, however, the key is whether or not we consider any particular engine map to have been created for any other reason than the generation of engine torque.

Q. Is its illegality an unforeseen side-effect of the rule to ban F-Ducts?

A: No, the two are unconnected.

Q. Why was it not possible to simple introduce blanket limits on hot and cold-blowing and apply them equally to every car?

A: This is precisely what we attempted to do in the first communication to the teams on 12 May. However, it soon became apparent that the matter was more complex than initially thought. The main problem was the difficulty of ensuring that teams were not prevented from using existing legitimate strategies whilst ensuring that the extreme mapping was no longer possible. This is why we postponed the introduction of the measures until the British Grand Prix.

There are also a number of other mechanical factors to take into account such as the architecture of the engine throttles themselves (butterfly or barrel operation).

Q. What were the measures that were introduced for the European Grand Prix in Valencia?

A: Whilst examining the engine maps from several teams it became clear that extreme solutions were being used for short times in qualifying and then being changed for more durable solutions for the race. The felt that this was certainly against the spirit of the parc ferme regulations but, more importantly, the relevant regulations simply do not allow changes to be made whilst the cars were being held under parc ferme conditions, connections to the car may be made and electronic units freely accessed, however, no changes to the set-up of the car can be made.

We therefore informed the teams on 14 June that we would take these measures in Valencia, this was done and cars run accordingly with very few difficulties.

Q. Why was the matter still being discussed over the weekend of the British Grand Prix, and why did the clarification change from Friday to Saturday?

A: The matter was still being discussed because one engine manufacturer (Renault Sport) was reluctant to run with the settings we had imposed and continued to try and convince us that they would require alternative settings in order to maintain their perfect reliability record. At the last minute additional information was provided to us which we felt would be hard to refuse having already made a small concession to another manufacturer (Mercedes Benz HPE).

However, further discussions on Friday evening and Saturday morning resulted in us deciding that we had conceded too much and, to be fair to the manufacturers who had presented cars in what we considered the correct configuration, we should revert to the specification we had specified in our note to the teams on 20 June. This is how all teams then ran on Saturday and Sunday in Silverstone.

Q. What was the purpose of holding two Technical Working Group meetings in Silverstone?

A: Following the events of Friday the FIA President felt that it would be useful to have an open discussion in order to see if consensus could be reached. Following these two meetings there was unanimous agreement among the teams to revert to the engine mapping regime used in Valencia, i.e. freedom on settings but no changes to the maps between qualifying and race.

This was felt to be the most sensible solution to a very complicated matter as the possibility of finding an alternative solution, which would be fair to all engine manufacturers, was becoming increasingly unlikely.

Q. If the FIA had not acted, would there have been a protest?

A: As all the teams had reached consensus there would have been no point in doing so.

Q. Has the matter now been settled?

A: Yes, and all cars will run under 'Valencia' conditions for the remainder of the season.

Q. Are there likely to be any protests now that this matter seems to have been settled?

A: We are optimistic that there will be no protests over any engine mapping and exhaust tailpipe issues this season. In addition to the main part of the agreement reached in the TWG meetings it was also agreed that no team would raise a protest against another on these matters for the rest of the season.

Q. What will happen in 2012 and beyond?

A: The teams have already agreed to strict constraints on exhaust tailpipe position which will result in them exiting the bodywork much higher up and no longer in the vicinity of the diffuser. Therefore, any aerodynamic benefit from exhaust gas flow over bodywork will be kept to an absolute minimum.

Engine mapping will remain free (within the existing constraints of the FIA SECU) as, with the exhaust tailpipes in this new position, it is felt that any aerodynamic benefit will now be incidental to their primary purpose.

BMW F-1 Engineers Shift Race From Ferrari to Electric Vehicles

Bayerische Motoren Werke AG engineer Jochen Schroeder used to spend his days trying to beat Ferrari on the streets of Monte Carlo. Now, he’s chasing Nissan, Chevrolet and Mitsubishi models in the electric-car race.

Schroeder, 39, spent three years developing electronic components for 220 mile-per-hour Formula One cars until BMW’s decade-long engagement in the racing circuit ended last November. BMW dropped out of Formula One to free up resources for electric-car development, redeploying 50 engineers to maintain its lead as the world’s largest maker of luxury autos.

“The technology we’re developing for BMW is pretty similar to Formula One,” Schroeder, who leads a team of engineers developing electric powertrain components, said in a telephone interview. “You just don’t see it every week on TV.”

Chief Executive Officer Norbert Reithofer is pushing an electric-powered car called the Megacity Vehicle to meet emissions regulations. The maker of BMW, Mini, and Rolls-Royce vehicles is building a $100 million factory near Seattle to make carbon fiber, the same material used in Formula One autos, for the frame of the new electric car.

BMW, whose middle name literally means “motors,” is developing the electric engines for the vehicle in-house, as it seeks to hang onto its roots in drivetrain technology even when emphasis shifts away from the combustion engine.

BMW’s ‘Heart’

“The drivetrain is and will remain the heart of an automobile, and this goes for electric vehicles too,” said Klaus Draeger, BMW’s development chief. “And the drivetrain is and will remain a core competence of BMW. That’s why we’re developing the propulsion system for the Megacity Vehicle ourselves.”

Building electric motors in-house may mean more for BMW’s image than the performance of the car, said Alastair Bedwell, an analyst with J.D. Power & Associates in Oxford, England.

Daimler AG, the maker of Mercedes-Benz, is buying motors for the current limited production run of the electric-powered Smart from Zytek Automotive in the U.K. At the same time, it is building electric motors for hybrids at a factory in Berlin. The company will decide later whether to build the motors itself or purchase them, spokesman Matthias Brock said.

“It’s possible to buy the motors from the shelf,” Bedwell said. “There are not likely huge leaps to be made in terms of electric motor development.”

Formula One Team

Including Schroeder, BMW employed over 300 people on its Formula One team. Aside from electric vehicle development, the workers have been redeployed to other areas, including production, purchasing and the motorcycles unit, BMW spokesman Michael Rebstock said.

While Schroeder and his fellow ex-Formula One engineers no longer have the weekly events to showcase their work, the strategic importance of creating electric vehicles has replaced the adrenaline kick of race day, he said.

“After the initial surprise of exiting Formula One, the reception to the new task was very positive,” said Schroeder. “The prospects are very exciting.”

Only four engineers from Schroeder’s 50-person Formula One crew opted to be reassigned to other BMW racing teams, with the rest following him back to the parent company. Most are now developing electric motors, batteries and electronic systems for hybrids and the Megacity, which is due to hit showrooms in 2013.

The systems, similar to technology introduced to the racing circuit in 2009 that allow cars to have 80-horsepower electric motors for added acceleration, provide an extra challenge when built for everyday use.

Cheaper Parts

“In Formula One, you only have two cars and the components only have to last a weekend,” Schroeder said. “For serial production, the components have to be cheaper and last 15 years.”

BMW’s move to redirect Formula One resources comes as Mercedes, the world’s second-largest luxury-car maker, stumbles in its effort to boost the brand’s sportiness by intensifying racing activities. The Stuttgart, Germany-based automaker last year coaxed champion Michael Schumacher out of retirement. The former-Ferrari driver, who won a record seven Formula One championships before quitting in 2006, is now in 10th place.

BMW last November agreed to sell its Formula One team back to founder Peter Sauber after the team’s Nick Heidfeld placed fifth in the season finale. The move was an about-face for BMW after earlier touting the racing circuit’s benefits.

Beating Competition

The team’s best performance under BMW was a second-place finish in 2007 after another team was penalized for possessing confidential Ferrari data. Sauber’s team is currently ranked eighth on the racing circuit.

Schroeder and his colleagues are still looking to beat the competition. Instead of taking on Ferrari on the racing circuit, it’s General Motors Co.’s Chevrolet Volt, Nissan Motor Co.’s Leaf and Mitsubishi Motors Corp.’s i-MiEV on city streets.

“Understanding the tight interplay between motors, batteries and control electronics can help set you apart from the competition,” Schroeder said.

In the build-up to the European Commission's final decision regarding the antitrust case against F1, FIA president Max Mosley talks exclusively to Atlas F1 about the anticipated settlement and other subjects of current interest. In a four-part series of features, Thomas O'Keefe outlines Mosley's path through the ranks, his childhood in a controversial home, the EC v. F1 case, Bernie Ecclestone, women in racing, and untimately, yes, his views about going back to Slicks

Part III - The Hearing Before the EC as to the Future of F1:
Is There Going to be a Settlement on the Courthouse Steps?

After years of bumping along through the European Commission bureaucracy, the Commission's Directorate General for Competition issued a so-called "Warning Letter" in December 1997 to the FIA, FOA an the ISC, following that Letter up with a formal Statement of Objections dated June 28, 1999. The FIA and the other respondents filed their vigorous Response to the Statement of Objections on January 31, 2000.

All parties having briefed the matter, an oral hearing was scheduled by the European Commission in Brussels on May 10-12, 2000 to finally bring the matter to a decision. The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether the European Commission itself would adopt its own the findings of antitrust violations.

Prior to the hearing, all parties went on a war footing. AE TV had prepared its own 90-minute presentation in support of its complaint. RTL, the German TV network which broadcasts extensive Formula One coverage and which has contracts with FOA that were at risk, was invited to attend. And the FIA began a press offensive, calling for the May hearing to be open to the public and the press and taking the unusual step of publishing all the core written submissions on its website, thus exposing to public view the kind of documents the Commission typically treats as confidential.

Miraculously, on May 5, 2000, a few days before the hearing date, a terse statement was issued by the European Commission, which stated, in full, as follows:

"On 26 April 2000, Mr. Max Mosley, President of the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), made concrete proposals to Commissioner Mario Monti in order to bring the Commission's competition cases against his Federation to a satisfactory conclusion.

By letter of 2 May 2000 Mr. Monti responded to Mr. Mosley. He indicated that, upon a first reading, Mr. Mosley's proposals appear to be innovative and constructive, and that his services would be happy to discuss the settlement proposals in more detail. However, in view of the ongoing preparations for the Oral Hearing in these cases which the Commission, at the request of the parties concerned, intended to hold on 10, 11 and 12 May, Mr. Monti informed Mr. Mosley that the discussions could only begin after those dates.

Following that letter, the three parties to the case, FIA, Formula One Administration Ltd. (FOA) and International Sportsworld Communicators (ISC), have requested that the Commission postpone the oral Hearing, which the Commission has agreed to do. The Commissioner instructed his services to begin the settlement discussions with FIA immediately."

Uncharacteristically, the FIA's statement was even shorter than the Commission's: "The FIA has nothing to add to this statement."

So what is really going on behind the scenes and is the postponement of the hearing and the pursuit of settlement a victory for the FIA or a reflection of the fact that the FIA, FOA and the ISC are desperate to get out of this case and are prepared to make certain concessions to make the matter go away?

AE TV is trying to put a brave face on this turn of events and initially had this response on May 5th:

"Obviously, the FIA and the FOA have now recognized that its legal case is so poor that ... an oral hearing would not help any more to convince the Commission … to make a complete u-turn and change its mind."

But by May 9th, apparently AE TV began to develop a jaundiced view of the settlement and AE TV sent its own aggressively phrased letter to Professor Monti, that was a pointed shot across the Commission's bow, warning the Commission not to regard AE TV as a mere observer in this matter but a party whose participation and consent would be needed to effectuate a binding and final settlement. The AE TV letter reads:

"We understand from the FIA's press release of 5 May that you have instructed your services to begin settlement discussions with the FIA, FOA and ISC immediately. The purpose of this letter is to ensure that AE TV's rights as Complainant are fully respected by the Commission, that no settlement is reached before AE TV is given the opportunity to comment on the appropriateness of any remedies offered by the FIA, and that any eventual settlement meets the requirements set out by the Commission in its Statement of Objections of 29 June 1999 ("SO"), which was the direct result of AE TV's complaints."

* * *

"AE TV trusts that the Commission will not consider any settlement which does not meet these requirements which are essential for restoring competition and putting an end to the unlawful situation whereby a regulatory monopoly is used to serve the financial interest of the FIA and its senior management.

* * *

"Please note that any settlement which does not meet these minimum requirements will be challenged by AE TV before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities. In fact, it would be disastrous if the public's perception was that all that is needed to obtain a 'soft compromise' from the Commission in a case involving very serious infringements of the competition rules is to pressurize the Commission as a whole and individual Commissioners (in an article of 27 September 1999 in the German magazine Focus, Mr. Van Miert is quoted as saying that "in the Formula One case, people were spending a lot of money to destroy me"), to accuse your services of "behaving grossly improperly and displaying incompetence amounting to abuse", and to ask for "replacing the officials dealing with the FIA's case" (FIA's public letter to you of 1 February 2000).

"It is clear that, on substance, the FIA's defense is helpless and, in its key parts, based on clearly incorrect statements (for details, see the Annex), which explains the FIA's interest in avoiding an oral hearing and settling the case.

Translation: we here at AE TV smell a rat and want to remind you that you should not think that if you settle this case without our consent that you have heard the last of us: we will see you in court in Luxembourg.

After years of bitter exchanges between the FIA and the Commission, what are the "innovative and constructive proposals" that Professor Monti found so appealing and which create the common ground for settlement? The answer is in the prior exchange between Max Mosley and Professor Monti and in external events that are plainly calculated to take the sting out of much of what the Commission has criticized in the way Formula One is run.

First, it is probably not a coincidence that just a month before the hearing, Bernie Ecclestone, through ISC, divested himself of the rights to exploit the TV broadcasting rights to the FIA World Rally Championship, one of the indications of monopoly that has been the subject of the Commission's proceedings. This divestment diminishes the appearance of Ecclestone's control over TV broadcasting rights. Ecclestone had previously withdrawn from the lesser FIA Championships in 1998.

The purchaser of ISC was Dave Richards, formerly Benetton's team manager who has been previously associated with rallying and who will now control the TV broadcasting rights for the FIA-sponsored World Rally Championship. It is clear from Max Mosley's February 1st 2000 letter to Professor Monti that the FIA and Ecclestone were advised through back channels at the European Commission that if Ecclestone gave up these World Rally TV rights, "this would make the 'problems' concerning Formula One less acute and much easier to deal with."

Second, the FIA have let it be known that certain provisions of the Concorde Agreement that are not enforced anyway could be sacrificed as the price of a settlement. For example, there is a clause in the Concorde Agreement that prevents the Formula One teams from competing in another series. The FIA has offered to delete that clause.

Coincidentally, on April 6th 2000, the FIA's World Motor Sport Council announced that the CART Indy-style car series and the American LeMans ("ALMS") world sports car series "have been sanctioned as FIA recognized International series." CART and ALMS are important as examples of cases where the FIA does not exercise a stranglehold over TV rights. The FIA states: "In the series which we authorize (i.e. license) but do not ourselves organize, we do not claim the [TV broadcasting] rights. We thus claim rights to only a very small proportion of motor sport championships. We do not claim rights in events like LeMans or Indianapolis which we authorize but are not part of any of our championships."

This means that although CART still could not run open wheel races at, say, Silverstone for so long as it is the site of the British Grand Prix, CART could run at Donington or Brands Hatch; indeed, according to Max, that restriction "would only apply to 9 circuits in the European Union out of 14 circuits that allow Formula One and a whole lot more that we would like for Indycars because they can also run on a grade 2 circuit, rightly or wrongly, but they can."

According to Mosley, since CART now wants to go to other flyaway circuits in the UK and maybe also in to Germany "it makes sense that they have an authorized series which facilitates things," assuming CART is running on a safe track and under safe conditions. Beyond that, the FIA does not get involved in TV rights because it is CART and not the FIA that organize the championship. Mosley emphasized that this step was simply the latest collaboration of CART with the FIA that goes back to FIA's original approval of Surfer's Paradise in Australia as a CART venue.

Third, the FIA have acknowledged in a statement in April 2000 that serious governance issues can be raised as to all sport, not just motorsport, "particularly the need to reconcile the power of sporting authorities and the hierarchical nature of sport with the need for commerce to operate freely," on which the FIA would welcome "input from other parts of the Commission as well as from national governments and sports federations. Dialogue and a search for solutions are needed."

Indeed, in Max Mosley's March 31st letter to Professor Monti, Mosley made the following statement: "We have repeatedly said that an open and rational dialogue could resolve the outstanding issues in an afternoon. All be need is neutral interlocutors with no agenda save to seek a solution consistent with EU competition law. This remains our position and our offer."

In our interview. Mosley gave us a preview of the kind of controls over corporate governance that the FIA might be open to:

"The criticism you can make of us at the moment [which are Sports Governance issues not basically Competition Law issues] is that a lot of what we do depends on the goodwill of the people running the sport. Like I sit here and I know that we are fair but someone on the outside could say 'how can you prove you are fair' or more to the point 'how could you have a structure so that assuming that you are actually fair somebody in your seat who wasn't couldn't abuse the system.' And I think that is a perfectly valid point. And I think that we should have a structure that prevents the system from being abused. And I wouldn't pretend that exists at the moment."

Reading between the lines, Mosley seems to be saying that although he and the other members of the Club know and trust each other and try to be honest and above board, he can understand how outsiders may see nothing but weak controls and informal procedures in an area of commerce that involves hundreds of millions of dollars, possibly not the most sensible way to do business but understandable if you know how it all developed.

But make no mistake about it, however comforting a Government of Laws may be to an outside supervisory body, Mosley leaves the impression that he personally believes in the Government of Men, old-fashioned as that may sound and be. Ecclestone too seems proud of his tradition of Keeping His Word, preferring a handshake on the pitlane to a multi-page contract with exhibits. Even in the formal European Commission documents it is stated that, "Mr. Ecclestone has always operated on an informal handshake basis."

As for the European Commission's flourishing of an olive branch, it is revealing that even though Professor Monti is new to the job, he is already out on the stump giving speeches. And in a speech he gave on April 17th in Brussels on "Sport and Competition," he seemed to be taking a page out of Max Mosley's copy book in his description of the approach now being followed by the Commission "in applying competition rules to sports-related economic activities: the first principle is to take account of the special characteristics of sport," a position that Bernie and Max have been trying to hammer away at for years.

A second principle is "to apply the competition rules in a manner which does not question the regulatory authority of the sporting organizations ... sporting rules applied in an objective, transparent and non-discriminatory manner do not constitute restrictions on competition."

Commissioner Monti's speech also addressed the importance of selling TV broadcasting rights, stressing, however, the dangers the Commission perceives when there is a concentration of rights, particularly "on an exclusive basis for a long duration, or covering a large number of events."

In short, although Professor Monti made these remarks at a conference on sport, he basically gave the FIA the playbook for what will and will not pass muster under his era as head of Competition Directorate.

Fourth, Mosley's letters and the FIA's recent statements make it clear that if the case is not settled, it will enter an entirely different realm, a political realm, even reaching up to the level of the European Parliament, to which the Commission and its staff is ultimately accountable. Says Mosley:

"I don't believe there are any real Competition Law issues here. The only issue that verges on Competition Law is the question of reconciling what I believe to be the need, or the absolute requirement for one governing body for a given sport with the need of Competition Law to have open and free competition in any economically important area. That is difficult to do with the governance of sport but it is not particularly a Competition Law problem. All the rest of it I regard as being basically a political dispute because they are in my view, perhaps wrongly, inventing problems where none exist with a view to achieving an objective and I think this is primarily political and has to be combated, if that's a word, in a political way."

And as part of its political battle, if it comes to that, the FIA promises to unmask in full for the Commission's overseers at the European Parliament to see the various acts of maladministration that have, according to the FIA, characterized the behavior of the Commission's staff in the handling of the case against Formula One. The Commission has already apologized for the leaking of a confidential letter to the financial press at an earlier point in the proceedings and has been required to pay 40,000 ECU's as costs to the FIA.

But the FIA is not satisfied that the Commission is willing or able to investigate itself and apparently there is more dirty linen to be aired, according to the FIA's recent submissions.

Mosley's letter to Professor Monti dated March 31 makes a tantalizing charge, to wit, that an official of the European Commission "intervened on behalf an outside business interest ... that your services passed commercially sensitive information about their plans to outside business interests before even the Director General (still less the FIA) had been informed."

Professor Monti, in his March 24 letter to Mosley gives these charges short shrift and says Mosley is simply rehashing "false allegations against the Directorate General for Competition ... You also reiterate allegations concerning improper behavior by an individual official involved in these cases. As you know, there was an internal Commission investigation which did not reveal any wrong-doing."

Where the truth lies in this maladministration of justice allegation, it is clearly the kind of conduct that the relatively newly-minted Professor Monti would rather not like to spend his days defending to the European Parliament, particularly since most of the conduct under scrutiny did not happen on Monti's watch.

Although Mosley is prepared to meet with the Commission "in a friendly and constructive way" he has made it clear in his letters to Professor Monti that if the Commission does not want to do that then Mosley will "pull out all the stops" and that the FIA "will say things in the hearing and to the media which will make it difficult if not impossible to reach a settlement. In other words, I am really going to go for them [the Commission]."

Finally, is a settlement in the interest of Formula One fans, if it leaves in place the fundamental structure of the FIA controlling the licensing and organizing of the Formula One Championship as well as the right to appropriate to itself the TV broadcasting events and assign such rights to others like the FIA and ISC for marketing and commercial exploitation?

To begin with, from a Formula One fan's perspective, they don't have a car in this race; the European Commission proceeding is happening to them, not with them or for them. It is essentially a commercial dispute with one of the world's Governments, the European Union, over how to cut up the lucrative TV broadcasting pie for FIA-organized Championships and none of the likely outcomes are appetizing.

The FIA predicts an end to free coverage of Formula One on terrestrial television in the EU, a drastic reduction in the number of European Formula One races and a Balkanized consortium of multiple governing bodies, promoters and commercial TV production companies bidding to put on an international Championship that will be run in accordance with substandard safety conditions.

For their part, AE TV and the Commission believe the remedy is the traditional one in monopoly cases: to break up the FIA's monopoly over international motorsport and enable promoters, organizers, teams and drivers the freedom to participate in international series/events without having to fear sanctions being imposed by the FIA. And, as a crucial element of the remedy, the FIA would be forced to relinquish its claim to TV broadcasting rights and the demands it make upon promoters of FIA-organized events to cede their television rights to the FIA as the price of running a championship event under the FIA flag. Do you prefer the Devil you know to the Devil you don't?

One thing seems certain: controlling TV rights to the Formula One Championship is the name of the game because the racing, the circuits and the TV coverage are now sufficiently homogenized that the races themselves could in truth be held anywhere and, increasingly, they are.

As Denys Rohan, the Chief Executive of Silverstone has said: "The Commission also seems to be forgetting that Formula One has become a global TV circus, in which it doesn't really matter - except to the circuits and those immediately dependent on an event - where it is held. There is no fundamental reason why all the Grands Prix could not be held outside the EU." -- A cold, cynical and uncaring view of Formula One perhaps, certainly not evocative of the days of Fangio, Moss and Clark, but a sobering, informed and realistic assessment nonetheless from someone in a position to know.

Fight or flight for Schumacher at Spa?

AUGUST 11, 2010

BY CLYDE BROLIN

True colours seem increasingly hard to camouflage in Formula 1 this year. One week after F1's most successful team reminded us how they tarnished their mystique, F1's most successful driver reminds us why he so lacked such mystique in the first place.

Michael Schumacher's move on Rubens Barrichello at the Hungarian Grand Prix was flinch-inducing for all race fans and 'horrible' in the Brazilian's accurate description. Such a close call at 180mph makes you wonder what it was about his wing man for five titles that so incensed Schumacher. Talk about an ever-expanding karmic debt.

Schumacher has since 'apologised', apparently at the behest of Mercedes - but only for Barrichello's mistaken belief that he was in any danger. I hereby admit to a similar error, then. From here it almost seemed the prospect of losing the final, solitary point to his erstwhile number two riled the German to the brink of violence.

But a quick glance down the years might reassure Rubens this was nothing personal, as similar tales abound. In 2001 at the Nurburgring Michael even attempted a similar wall-of-death stunt on his own brother Ralf.

If such swerves in the relative low pace of the start became a trademark, Schumacher was not averse to having a swipe at full speed too. When he next takes to the track at Spa-Francorchamps for Friday practice on August 27 it will be ten years to the day since Mika Hakkinen found himself under a similar delusion that he was heading for an unscheduled flight over the Ardennes forest.

Like Barrichello on Sunday, Hakkinen had a huge pace advantage over Schumacher with five laps left of the 2000 Belgian Grand Prix. But as the Finn tried to pass on the run to Les Combes, Schumacher moved across on him at 200mph. Unlike Barrichello, who was prepared to risk all for one measly championship point, Hakkinen backed off, just, rather than risk flying into the trees.

Within a lap, Hakkinen hit back with one of the all-time great moves as the two cars passed either side of the hapless Ricardo Zonta in the BAR. Afterwards the incensed Finn took Schumacher to one side and, using his hands to depict cars as all racers do, he firmly showed him what he had done wrong.

In the press conference Hakkinen said: "I didn't think it was fair at the time, but the reason I talked to Michael for so long after the race was not to try and put the blame on him. I just wanted to let him know I had noticed that the situation had happened. It was an unusual move - I won't say he was in the wrong, but it was a very hectic and unpleasant moment, and so close."

Despite a similar clash as the pair battled at Macau in F3, that was as far as Hakkinen would be pushed on the sparring at Spa 2000. He's kept his word, and his mouth shut, ever since. Ten days later at Monza, little wonder that a rarely humbled Schumacher described Hakkinen as a fine professional and a great sportsman.

By contrast, it's striking how little a decade has taught Schumacher. Both at Spa and last weekend he admitted his pursuers had been going too fast to hold them back, even with so few laps remaining. Yet his last line of defence was to attempt intimidation - or the threat of a flying lesson.

Schumacher's lunges have been likened to something out of go-karts. You get away with them unless your wheels are exposed, as in F1, when contact can send the car skywards. It looks brutal and is rightly condemned - but what if these moments are not quite as premeditated as they look? Freud might take a look at the family-run kart track in Michael's home town of Kerpen and conclude he regresses to that childhood state of mind as a reflex whenever he's put under real pressure.

What must be particularly galling for this seven-time world champion is the truism that you are remembered not for your good bits but when you screw up. But buckling under pressure is a surprisingly consistent theme of Schumacher's career. The most crucial moments often bring out great performances in great athletes, allowing them to find 'the Zone'. But it was in the heat of title battles that the otherwise robotic German was most likely to suffer a malfunction and suddenly look all too human.

In total he has been involved in five world championship battles that went to the wire. The first two ended in two crashes. Schumacher notoriously tried and failed to punt Jacques Villeneuve out of the Jerez finale in 1997, adding credence to claims he did the same to rob Damon Hill of the title at Adelaide in 1994.

"Before the race I knew he was going to have me off," Villeneuve told me about the moment he now describes as the funniest of his career. "He had Damon off for his first championship, he always cracked under pressure, so I knew he was going to do it. Still, that day a lot of people believed he didn't do it on purpose. He was still clean enough for people to believe anything he said, although it didn't last that long."

A year later Schumacher stalled on the Suzuka grid, allowing Hakkinen an easy win. Then in his final year (2006) he suffered a puncture after another clash. Schu's only successful shootout was in 2003, when he struggled to eighth place and the single point he needed to defeat Kimi Raikkonen after another near miss with his brother. This record is not good by the standards of any robot worth his bolts.

Incidentally, a certain trusty team-mate called Barrichello won that 2003 race to deny Kimi the points he needed anyway - yet another reason to shove him into the wall seven years later.

But in Overdrive: Formula 1 in the Zone, former fighter pilot Tug Wilson, now a consultant to F1 teams on performing in intense situations, explains how far you can stray under stress: "When these guys screw up it's beamed into millions of homes in glorious technicolour. That is a huge pressure to take with you. Schumacher is one of the best drivers ever but he's known as a cheating bastard for taking Hill off and parking his car at Monaco. So you can imagine the emotions they go through.

"They've been in karts since they could walk so the mechanics of driving the car fast come naturally for them. It's what they do. What puts the stress on them is coping with everything else. Schumacher so believes in his own ability that not being able to wring another half-second out of the car at Monaco - when he knew Alonso was behind on the fastest lap - led to a huge stress reaction.

"The classic 'stress curve' shows we need a certain amount of stress to increase performance, but if we go beyond that we rapidly drop off. That's when you act completely and utterly out of character. They call it going into 'the Grip'."

Some would consider it generous to deem such actions out of character given their regularity in Schumacher's career. But this is a man who has contested over 250 grands prix, almost all in full view at or near the front. It's a fair calculation that his trips to the Zone outnumber those to the Grip.

Indeed, I am convinced it is the quest for this Zone that tempted Schumacher back this year - as the highs of racing are better than anything else he knows. One of his close confidants assured me it was the heavenly sensation of being at the limit that he most treasured from his time in F1. Yes, ahead of the results.

Even his choice of post-retirement pastime smacked of this love for the limit. He had long yearned for a private life, and once free of the Formula 1 regime of testing and race weekends he reportedly started partying like a teenager. Then the bug bit again. It was not the winning that drew him back to the tarmac, but the feel of pushing to the very edge - hence his initial switch to two wheels. When they go off it hurts every time, as he found out.

For the purposes of Overdrive I asked Schumacher during his sabbatical what the best feeling was about driving. "The pleasure is that you feel exactly when you're at the limit and when you have the car right there," he said. "It's so difficult to keep it just there because you're always riding on this edge and you might be a bit above or a bit below. When it's there it's fun but to hit it perfectly and set consistent times is the key. When you keep it there for the entire lap or the entire race and so on, that is the thrill of racing."

Even now I believe he's getting glimpses of that thrill - and that's what's keeping him going. But if even "original-spec" Schumacher showed how fragile that feeling can be by slipping off the "edge", such joy must be especially elusive for Schu Mk II. Yet, despite his struggles with an imperfect car/tyre set-up he still hasn't taken his ball away - one reason my admiration for him had been going up this year until last week.

Schumacher has kept a stiff chin throughout, despite being thrashed by his team-mate. But Hungary perhaps showed us the first dose of the Grip. He claims to be in it to win it but so far his greatest 2010 contribution has been to provide the field with tales to tell their grandchildren. He still clearly has pride and the thought of his old wing man soaring past him may have tipped him back over the edge.

Schumacher still potentially has much to offer but he has to tread extremely carefully from here on. The F1 world made grudging allowances for his moments in the Grip when he was at the top. But he can no longer afford to slip into its clutches - if that's all he's bringing to the party the invitations will soon start to dry up.

Ferrari indulged Schumacher his every whim too but he's picked the wrong team in Mercedes, which spent over three decades in self-imposed motorsport exile after the 1955 Le Mans disaster when a car flew into the crowd. Schumacher claims a lack of interest in racing history - but this is one lesson that will doubtless be drummed back into him before Spa.

Now is the time for Schumacher to revel in the unique chance he has to right, rather than compound, some of the wrongs of his earlier career. Other sports offer even the most vilified winning machines the chance to grow in popularity in their twilight. In F1, by contrast, they quit or are turfed out without sentiment.

A lesser name may have already suffered that fate, but Spa will be the barometer of where Schumacher goes from here. It is his favourite track, the scene of his debut and first win. Passing is hard work and starting near the back due to his ten-place penalty, he may find out just what Hakkinen endured a decade earlier. Any similar antics and it's surely 'auf wiedersehen' time.

But having the odds stacked against him also gives him a glorious opportunity. First he should try and get natural justice back on his side by apologising unreservedly to Barrichello. Then he has the chance to go out and show us what he's really made of. If he can unleash the right part of his Kerpen childhood training this time - the sheer enthusiasm and unbridled, natural driving skill - he can find the Zone and show the world Schu can shine again.

Clyde Brolin is the author of 'Overdrive - Formula 1 in the Zone'