Throughout last weekend at Fuji there was a flurry of media reports around the potential for Audi to leave LMP1 at the end of the 2017 World Endurance Championship season.

I say ‘a flurry’, but the reality is that there is one piece of original work and several others claiming the very same knowledge without any attribution to the original piece. One in particular was posted by a prominent UK-based weekly, which shamefully culled the earlier work in two versions of the same story, one posted version referring to ‘German media reports’, another effectively claiming the story as their own – not what I’d expect from a fellow professional.

That original piece is written by Auto Motor und Sport Editor Marcus Schurig, a man not prone to guesswork; it’s his piece, and nobody else’s, that anyone interested in the story should read. It can be found HERE >>

First things first this is NOT another retelling of the “Audi will leave to go to Formula One” tale perpetuated by various (usually F1-centric) writers and commentators, sometimes via the premise that OBVIOUSLY Audi should spend its available cash in F1, sometimes because, let’s be blunt, it suited Audi’s political purposes to allow the ACO to believe it as a possibility (see below!), and sometimes because there simply wasn’t a story about F1 fit to print and it seemed like a good idea!

This though is different, very different. Certainly, whatever happens Audi is NOT going to race in F1! The bigger question is where, if anywhere, are they going to race.

Oh and it isn’t yet another tiresome and wilful misinterpretation of a project or programme being “under review” for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever ALL motorsport programmes, in particular factory funded programmes, are under review all of the time. Anyone who implies differently has little or no understanding of the way the corporate world operates, or knows damn well and chooses to ignore it.

If Herr Schurig saw fit to put the effort into a piece as extensive as this with as many evidence based suppositions as he has then be assured there is much more to it than a single journalist’s whimsy. Let’s be clear here, this is not what has become the norm in much of the motorsport journalism environment – it is not clickbait, and it is not carefully packaged bite-sized tabloidisation of a half-truth for dramatic effect.

There is zero chance that he has not spoken to any and all important parties involved that would take the call. There is equally zero chance that any of them would be quoted on or off the record. There would though be the opportunity to exchange notes, discuss potential outcomes, and remove variables from the arguments.

Yes there is a lot of supposition in the piece, albeit intelligently dissected and carefully expressed, but it is a set of arguments that needs to be taken seriously.

What is Audi saying on the record? Exactly what you would expect them to say. “We never discuss any programme decisions publicly ahead of any announcement.”

Those announcements have habitually come in December each year when Audi mounts its end of season awards and celebrate the year’s successes (and lets face it there have been plenty down through the years!).

It’s at that event that Audi board members have consistently, and very much on the record, debunked earlier rumours, and it’s at that event, and at no point before, that they confirmed this season’s reduction (for both Audi and Porsche) to two cars at the Le Mans 24 Hours.

That leaves one question. What do I know?

The answer is, very little of substance aside from this:

It is very clear that the Audi LMP programme has been under scrutiny of a level seldom, if ever, seen in its now near two decade history. Results have always mattered, but lately have seemed to matter rather more, and the lack of positivity in the results has certainly not added balance to the debate.

I’m certainly not going to dissect Marcus’s story, I’m simply going to direct you to read it (yes I do know it’s in German and would direct you to Google translate). Judge for yourselves the arguments made and the evidence that is fielded. It is clear that this is a piece that deserves to be taken very seriously.

There is though a counterpoint that needs to be considered.

As briefly raised earlier in this piece Audi have, in the past, undoubtedly wielded influence on the ACO et al in defining their racing regulations via the threat, actual or implied, of withdrawal.

As reported in our interview with Toyota’s Pascal Vasselon, Audi are arguing their corner in the current negotiations for the next major rule changes very hard indeed – A negotiating stance based on the implied threat of withdrawal should not be overlooked. But neither should it be assumed.

Whether the basic conclusion of the Auto Motor und Sport piece, an inevitable Audi withdrawal, comes to pass is for others to decide.

I hope fervently that they don’t make that decision but I do believe there is real reason for doubt this time, and I believe too that at the very least the issues in play have been comprehensively nailed by Auto Motor und Sport.