F1's Perfect Storm

I have been religiously watching Formula 1 racing for the past 11 years. I have seen Michael Schumacher win five world titles, Montoya and Alonso fight Schumi and Alonso coming out on top, and Hamilton win the title in his second season in F1. Some amazing races, some breadth-taking overtaking moves and some horrifying accidents.

However, for reasons that I am still sorting out in my head, 2010 seems like the season that will shade all seasons. How is this for starters?

• All the engineering genius is well divided between teams. Brawn/Mercedes GP have Ross Brawn, Red Bull have Adrian Newey, McLaren and Ferrari have spent years developing management structures to facilitate technical prowess for years. Apart from McLaren's and Ferrari's bleep, Red Bull and Brawn were class of the field, in 2009. McLaren, Ferrari and Renault will catch up, in fact McLaren already did in the later part of the season. And so we have the case of five teams having the potential of having very, and hopefully equally quick, cars.
• The driver-line ups are equally impressive and well-balanced.
• Mercedes: Schumi and Rosberg, seven-time world champion and Mr. Quick in 2009 respectively.
• McLaren: Button and Hamilton, two world champions.
• Ferrari: Massa and Alonso, near-world-champion in 2008 and 2005/6 world champion.
• Red Bull: Vettel and Webber, who finished third and fourth respectively in 2009.
• The return of Schumi is just the tonic that F1 needed after the lieing and crashing scandals. BBC's F1 site had six videos posted at one time. Formula 1's official site has four stories on his return. F1 pundits are ecstatic. And the man himself wants to 'throw an F1 car' around the circuit and can't wait to drive against the guys half his age and win the world title. Phenomenal stuff.
• One of my regrets has been not being able to watch Ayrton Senna. Every time I speak to somebody about him or read an article, the impression I get is that of deep respect and admiration for a human who put in superhuman efforts. His nephew brings the Senna name back to F1. Personally, I believe this is of historical proportions, and wish him the best.
• Jean Todt takes the helm at the FIA. I don't know about the problems being suffered by the FIA and the remedies that could solve them. From my perspective as a viewer, the FIA have tremendously improved the safety in F1 and regular road cars. However their decisions when punishing drivers and team does come across as inconsistent and slightly unfair.

So readers, quite a few changes in F1. Except for the regulations. There will be no refuelling next year but the relative stability of the rules should allow the designers to innovate. Bernie certainly seems chirpy about F1's situation now, and if he is so then we must remain optimistic. From my point of view, after watching Schumi's interview today, my gut tells me that I am in for the best season yet over the past 11 years.

Congratulations to the BBC F1 Team

With two races to go, I believe congratulations are in order for the BBC team responsible for covering the F1 races. They have done a super job. I don't want to compare them to ITV'scoverage in the past year but the following are the items that impressed me the most:

1. It was critical that they were able to get Martin Brundle on board. His technical explanations in layman's terms and observational powers are phenomenal. I don't know how the likes of Damon Hill or David Coulthard could have fared, but when comes to F1 commentary Martin Brundle is one of the best. So well done on getting his services.
2. I really like BBC F1 site. They are full of videos and content is posted within a few hours. I am able to go home on Friday and watch the practice with Anthony Davidson's commentary. I also watch the post-qualifying and post-race driver interviews.
3. Smart decision on putting the full race on IPlayer. Five out of ten times I tune into it the week after the race to watch it.
4. The F1 forum is one of the post-race highlights for me. They get some senior people from the top teams and really grill them. 1.5 hours of race is great, but the forum caps it nicely, much like dessert after a meal :).
5. Ted Kravtiz is as big a phenomenon as Martin Brundle. His adventurous interviewing and poking his head around the corner brings us the latest gossip, and he is usually right.

Next season, I hope to follow the blogs with more discipline as they have some insightful content. It would be nice if the site could show the live timing like the www.formula1.com website does.

Anyway, back to work now.

Crashgate 2008/9

Why wasn't I surprised when the smoke from the Nelson Piquet camp indicated that he and his Renault team had conspired for a safety car period to help Alonso win at Singapore 08? Because in the past 11years of watching F1, I have seen sufficient cheating, controversies and attempts at winning races and the championship at all costs. I agree with Eddie Irvine that teams do anything and everything, legally and borderline illegally, possible to win.

Look at Michael Schumacher at Monaco in 2006 where he stopped his car at the second-last corner to prevent Alonso from completing his final qualifying lap. Questionable accidents involving David Coulthard, Jacques Villeneuve and Schumacher are plenty in the 90s F1 races. Drivers spinning to let team-mates win, Barrichello slowing down in Austria are surely race-fixing incidents.

In those days such 'offences' were deemed allowable, almost acceptable as F1 was branded a team sport. It is a team sport, there is no doubt. If a driver is not in a position to win the championship then helping his team-mate is just common sense.

These days, however, things are tougher. Global recession, dwindling viewer numbers, lack of sponsors and competition from other series such as GP2 and A1 are forcing F1 to vigorously protect its image. Max and Bernie are much stricter than in the 90s. The liergate scandal that claimed Ron Dennis was a clue that a few heads would roll at Renualt.

And so it was that both Flavio Briatore and Pat Symonds, Team Principal and Technical Director respectively both fell. It wasn't a surprise. Somebody had to take the blame. Renault had a lot at stake and couldn't risk brand damage or loss of political capital to protect these two individuals, who let's face it, are not big value adders or revenue generators. It may be justly deserved as various press releases from the FIA indicate that they master-minded this cheating.

Nelson Piquet does not come out of this undamaged. He claims to have made a wrong decision while under pressure. But aren't F1 drivers supposed to make great decisions while under a lot of pressure: making tyre choice, fuel, overtaking decisions while driving at 200MPH? Is this inability to respond to pressure responsible for his poor performances. Had he been performing impeccably and qualified up the order then Briatore or Symonds would not have compromised his race so blatantly. So I am afraid he can't claim to be the innocent victim.

F1 moves on to Singapore now. All the drivers seem eager to put the negative press behind them and put on a good show. I enjoyed watching the race last year. It's a beautiful city and the organizers need to be commended for their efforts. Can't wait for Sat noon.

The Diffuser Controversy - continued

This latest suggestion from Sam Michal, technical director at Williams, suggests that increasing diffuser downforce aids the following car's ability to overtake. Thi contradicts Briatore's suggestion that the opposite is true. Confusing...

"It is clear in the regulations what you can do," he said. "That is what the FIA thinks, that is what the stewards think. The OWG [Overtaking Working Group] finding was that producing more diffuser downforce resulted in an increase in downwash for the following car and improved overtaking capability."

"So from that point of view, our diffuser is helping overtaking and the others are not. That study was done by Renault, Ferrari, McLaren and BMW Sauber. So by their own studies they said we should increase diffuser downforce, and that is what we have done."

The Diffuser Controversy

Formula 1 has never been shy of controversies. It's part and parcel of this global, glamorous and expensive sport. With so much time and money invested, and with the ever-watchful eye of the media, the participants are ultra competitive, and ruthless in their desire to win.

The latest diffuser controversy is not a surprise. Ever since the 2009-spec cars hit the testing trail in early January, and the teams began looking at what others had done with their cars, concerns over certain designs began to emerge. Ferrari's exhaust design was one of them. Williams and Toyota's diffuser also got more than a fair share of attention. Ferrari were quick to react and updated their exhaust design, while Williams and Toyota remained adamant with their diffuser. The latter was because they were getting performance benefit out of it; Ferrari were getting very little and not big enough to pick a fight.

Things kicked into second gear when Brawn GP stole the show. The times were mesmerising. To borrow Massa's phrase, "they rose from the ashes" to lead the field. Amazing. How was this possible?

At the Aussie GP, Ferrari, Red Bull, BMW and Renault protested. Their protest was turned down and the diffusers ruled to be legal. As Renault team principal, Flavio Briatore explains, the diffuser design of Brawn, Williams and Toyota do not follow the "spirit" of the regulation, which is to reduce downforce. They are within the written regulations but intend to increase downforce that contradicts the spirit of Mosley's proposal. But in this ultra-competitive expensive sport where 0.1 seconds is too long, if teams other than Ferrari and McLaren innovate to win then why is it wrong?

The teams are going to appeal the race stewards' decision. If the appeal fails then, as Briatore admits, the others will be able to adopt the solution for the Barcelona GP. With 12 races remaining from that point on, the points deficit will be small enough for the others to catch up. It will make for exciting racing.

From an ordinary viewer's point of view: well I don't know what a diffuser is. The folks at f1technical.net have a few lines to explain it. All I know is that it's this thing at the back of the car that increases downforce and makes the car go faster. If Brawn, Williams and Toyota take the first corner at the Aussie race then it's not entirely a disaster. The rules were changed to shake up the grid, and they have done exactly that - the controversy is just the spice that Formula 1 never misses.

The New Points System Withdrawn

The FIA has withdrawn the "winner takes all" points system. There was plenty of opposition to this sytem, from namely Formula One Teams Association (FOTA), seven-time champion Michael Schumacher, the ruling world champion Lewis Hamilton and other drivers.

I believe this is the correct decision. As I commented in my previous post, this is a year full of changes. As an ordinary viewer of races, the F1 circus should allow us the opportunity to fully digest the visibly different cars, the new rules (tyres, KERS, aerodynamics), and the move to BBC.

I see the logic in Bernie's comments. He wants the racing to go on until the last corners of every race, and there is some reward for us ordinary folks. However, for some of us, the strategy behind the approach to races, the juggling of variables that the teams go through, is also equally important. What is McLaren's approach in the last race of the 2008 season. So Mr. Ecclestone, please allow us some to digest this new Formula 1, and not always focus on having highest TV audiences.

A side comment before I close: this whole saga with the new points system has shone some light on the decision making process at the FIA. It seems that nobody at the FIA "thinks things through". Formula One Management aka Bernie Ecclestone and the FOTA aka the teams, do what serves their interest the most. My impression of the FIA has gone down a couple of notches. Perhaps, I shouldn't be so naive.

The New Points System

The FIA has changed the way the drivers championship will be decided. Until this change, the driver that accumulated the most points won the drivers championship. Now the driver that wins the most grand prix will win the championship; should two or more drivers have the same number of wins, the points system will try to break the tie.

What do we make of this change?

First, the timing of this change is sceptical. We are 9 days away from the first race, so the sudden urge with which the FIA ratified change is perplexing. All the teams and TV networks will have to rush to get this new system implemented in software, re-run simulations and generally reset their mindsets. Furthermore, the TV networks will have to add one more piece to the raft of changes that have been introduced.

Second, there's no reasonable explanation given to why this change was made and why it was made so late. McLaren's Martin Whitmarsh commented that this decision was taken after a survey of audience views; nobody asked me of what I thought and I have been watching F1 for the past 10 years. There's more than a hint of some McLaren politicking here.

Thirdly, it will benefit the teams who improve the cars over the season. Ferrari and McLaren are the potential beneficiaries. If Brawn GP have a perfect start and accumulate a few wins, then they will be quickly nullified by mid-season when McLaren solves its problems or Ferrari find some more performance. Consistency of finishing on the podium or reliability will not be as rewarded as with the points system.

Finally, I agree with the sentiments expressd by Alonso and Button. Since the Constructors Championship is graded using the 'old' points system, the disparity between the two championships will undoubtedy cause confusion. Football leagues in Europe follow the points system and the lack of alignment with them will also fuel criticism.

The raft of new technical regulations along with very different looking cars was clearly not enough. It seems like a completely new Formula.