BBC’s commentary

I really was unsure when Martin Brundle was promoted to lead commentator. I loved his analysis of various events during a race, and felt that as he took over the lead role, this would be lost. No disrespect to David Coulthard, but I wasn’t sure he would be as insightful.

Martin is an expert analyst, he has won awards for his time in the comms box at various races. Upon taking the lead role, this is clearly something he has not broken out of. And I thought it was great.

Martin’s occasional analysis coupled with the fact that he knew what was going on made it much more engaging. But he didn’t go in too heavy, leaving that to DC, so as not to alienate new fans. The atmosphere between the two seemed warm as well. I had never noticed any strain between Legard and Brundle, until yesterday.

Yes there were a few niggles, like repeating himself once or twice, but these will easily go with experience. I found myself listening to every piece of information that was offered, and really felt drawn in to the race.

DC did well, he carried on his role of analyst alongside Jake Humphrey in the pits, and he worked well, never having to cut over Martin, the way he had to cut over Legard.

One other thing – I have never heard the lead commentator correct the analyst! In qualifying, DC questioned why Vettel was using softs, to which Martin replied – “well they only have 11 minutes to set a time, so they need to get a good lap in…” i could somehow never see Murray doing that to him!

Good call BBC, and well done to Martin and David. Long may this partnership continue.

Deconstructing Kolles statement…

This is why I am not a fan of Hispania Racing. They constantly paint themselves in a favourable light even when impossible to do so. Martin Brundle, on the BBC commentary, described them as a “waste of petrol” and to be honest, I agree.

This is a statement made by Colin Kolles, Hispania Racing Team Principal, after the team failed to qualify for the Australian GP. I have added my own thoughts to each line:

“In the end it just couldn’t be, still I’m incredibly proud of my whole team. Our drivers produced the maximum in the least amount of time possible.”

Why was it the least amount of time possible? If that is the maximum they could do, it doesn’t bode well for the season.

“We managed to get both cars ready in time for qualifying and proved that the car is capable of running a lot quicker than today.”

Other teams got their cars ready for FP1 and FP2, so this isn’t a big achievement really. Proved the car was faster? How exactly, it was as slow in the morning as it was in qualifying.

The circumstances in which we arrived were not as desired. We created a miracle again, but it wasn’t enough.”

Why were the circumstances not ideal? Again, the car was launched at the last test, but couldn’t be run due to ‘parts being held up at customs.’ Yet the team turn up in Melbourne with two incomplete and unbuilt cars. Were they ever likely to run in testing? Were parts really held up? I am now not so sure.

We’ll be back stronger than ever in Malaysia. There we will have more time to test the car and show where the F111 really belongs”.

In the skip to be honest. With no testing, I fail to see how they are going to improve the car to make it three seconds faster, and make the cut in qualifying, and then get close to everyone else on the grid.

Virgin Racing came out last year and admitted they hadn’t built a big enough fuel tank. You would imagine, had that fate befallen HRT, they’d have blamed their fuel supplier for making it from a thicker liquid, or the FIA for not regulating fuel density…

Vettel wins as unknowns become clearer

The Australian Grand Prix is back as the first race of the season – which somehow feels right. It is nice to get up early to watch the start of the season, even if it does mean that, for some reason i am struggling today!

It was also a more exciting race than Bahrain last year. Yes, one car led from lights to flag, and dominated proceedings, but there was an air of the unknown.

At the start, Hamilton got away poorly from second, losing out to Webber before regaining the position at turn one. A fast starting Petrov (more on him later) baulked Button, which in turn caused Alonso to run wide, and drop from 5th to 10th. Massa meanwhile, took advantage to climb from 8th to 4th. This was a key point for a couple of reasons.

The ‘air of the unknown’ I mentioned came about in a few ways. Firstly, we were never sure about those tyres. It was not just how well they would last, but how well they could last on each car. In FP1 we had seen that Red Bull seemed heavy on its Pirelli rubber, so would Vettel and Webber be required to make extra stops?

Another unknown was the McLaren. Written off after winter testing, no one knew what to expect. It flew. Yet it had never covered a full race distance in one long run before this weekend. However, Hamilton was able to peg Vettel, until his floor dropped, and Button was visibly faster than the Ferraris. The team could have had a double podium…

That brings me to point three – DRS. We didn’t know what the system would do, how easy it would make it to overtake. But we got a first hand demonstration in the Massa / Button battle. As I have said before, DRS will aid overtaking, not cause it. All the driver in front has to do is choose a defensive line into a corner, and the pass will not happen. That is exactly what occurred, with Button using the DRS, and Massa defending.

Button’s drive through was fair and just, but was a shame. McLaren asked Race Control what they should do, but I do believe they should have known. Martin Whitmarsh states that they didn’t see the move, but I swear they have screens on the pit wall. What did surprise me though, was Alonso passing Massa directly afterward. Were Ferrari playing a team game there? They believed button would have to let Massa through, which meant Alonso would also have to be let past. Alonso was about to pit anyway, so he didn’t really gain a huge advantage by passing his team-mate. Clever move.

In the end, it was Vettel, from Hamilton, with a very impressive Petrov taking the final podium step. Well done to him. After last season, being openly questioned as to whether he was any good, he raced comfortably, and never looked like losing third to Alonso, who must be sick of the sight of the Renault rear wing. Petrov outpaced his team-mate all weekend, and while Heidfeld claims damage caused him to finish 14th, one only needs to look at qualifying.

Special mention to a couple of rookies. Sergio Perez drove a one stop race, something even Pirelli couldn’t believe, to finish an impressive seventh. However, Sauber were later disqualified from the results, due to a technical infringement with their rear wing. They are set to appeal. This lifted British rookie Paul Di Resta into the points in 10th. He drove a solid race in a Force India which really should be doing better.

Mercedes and Williams both recorded DNFs, Mercedes cars were both involved in accidents. One note, the track was much less cluttered without the HRTs racing. We wait to see if they can make the 107% cut in Malaysia.

Those tyre markings

having watched FP1 and FP2 today, and going through the highlights, I can say honestly that I cannot see which tyres the cars are on at speed.

From the onboard shots, on the T-Bar camera, you can see the yellow markings, but not the silver. From any other camera, you can’t see anything.

On track, the car is more often driving toward the cameras. By the time it reaches them, the camera tracks so quickly to follow it, you don’t have time to focus on the wheels. The yellow was very blurred, the silver merged perfectly with the black.

At least with the lines on the sidewall, there was a constant colour going around the wheel, so it didn’t blur in. Plus, the car coming toward you, there was still the chance to see if the option, or prime tyres were bolted on. I find I am having to do too much work to see who is running what.

We won’t see the red and white combo for a few races yet, but I don’t hold much hope. I remember Bridgestone played with the idea of big coloured dots on the tyres at one point, and they decided on the stripe solution instead.

Sorry Pirelli, nice try, nice idea, but it isn’t working.

Although I welcome your comments!

Mclaren surprise in FP2

After lagging behind during winter testing, McLaren came to Albert Park with renewed vigour, claiming a second-a-lap improvement thanks to a few design tweaks. They certainly didn’t disappoint, claiming a 1-2 in FP2, while getting in 55 laps during FP1. The wear rate on the tyres did not seem that extreme either.

McLaren chief Martin Whitmarsh explained that the team’s octopus style exhaust just wasn’t working as they hoped, and going back to a conventional exit, together with a new floor, made sense. There was also a new front wing, to improve the airflow. Button commented that the handling of the car felt more “complete”.

Elsewhere, Red Bull and Ferrari stayed at the sharp end of the times, Webber topping the FP1 timesheets, and Alonso taking third in both sessions. Massa remained slightly anonymous however, in 11th and 7th respectively. Mercedes too looked promising, although not quite as quick as the expected title favourites.

Renault were disappointing. Both Petrov and Heidfeld struggled to make an impact on the times, Petrov outpacing Heidfeld in both sessions. For a team that looked promising in testing, it was quite a difference. One wonders what they would have done with a fired up Kubica behind the wheel.

At the other end, Lotus reserve driver Karun Chandhok took the honours for the first crash of the season, ripping apart the front of his Lotus on his first corner out. Force India and Williams held fort in midfield, although Paul Di Resta did outpace Sutil in his only practice run out.

At the back were Virgin, who struggled to achieve a time within 107% of the fastest. Their hopes are that hard tyres are used by the front-runners, while they will set their times on the medium compounds (an update on tyre markings to follow!). HRT are probably wishing that tyre choice was their only problem too. Neither car made it out in FP1, while Luizzi only completed an installation lap in the final two minutes of the second session.

So, where are we for quali and the race tomorrow? Who knows!

HRT in trouble again

It seems to be a case of Deja Vu at Hispania. First, they arrive at a grand prix with no testing, and then they get one car out in FP2 for an installation lap, but no more.

I want to like this team, the way I used to like Minardi – back of the grid strugglers who do their best. But unlike Minardi, they don’t own up to their problems. Take the whole FOTA argument. Then the extraordinary statement that if they didn’t have rookie drivers, they’d have beaten Lotus to 10th last season.

You also have to ask – how much did they pay for a top Hollywood designer to create their livery? Then who decided to go public with the lack of sponsors, by paining the car in ‘you could go here’ slogans – usually reserved as fillers in magazines.

The situation they find themselves in in so absurd, that one Twitter feed this morning wrote: “Luizzi is seated in the car – so the seats are not stuck in customs!”

The team now say they will get both cars out and running in FP3. Still however much they do, indeed if they do anything, they will need to find a set-up and hone it, ready for qualifying. Once there, they need to beat the 107% target. I can’t see them doing it.

The Pirelli colour system

Ok, hopefully we have all seen it now. Pirelli have decided not to follow Bridgestone, with a stripe around the softer compound at races. Instead, they will colour their logos, using different colours for each individual compound

Super soft = red / Soft = yellow / Medium = white / Hard = silver / Intermediate = blue / Wet = orange

A lot of comments have been made regarding the closeness in colour of the medium and the hard, with people stating that the two compounds will be indistinguishable at speed. Pirelli have said that they will continue to enforce the ‘one compound gap’ principle that Bridgestone started. However, they have also mentioned in the past that this will be evaluated. It could be the case, that on some harder wearing tracks, they will need to bring medium and hard – if this occurs, I am sure they will evaluate the markings.

I like the idea of marking the inters and wets. Again, many have been asking why, as the tread pattern should tell the difference. I have never been able to make out the tread of a tyre at 180mph! By marking them, we will see who is on the wets, and who is chancing it on a drying track. If a car is faster, we can tell which tyre is best to be on.

My concern is the view of the tyres from the overhead camera. I’ll admit, I was unsure how they would look in general, but that is a wait and see moment. From overhead though, you will only be able to see the marking on the inside, and with the suspension in the way, this could make it difficult to spot who is on what.

Another point. I hate the Pirelli logo! It looks so un-natural being straight, on a curved tyre. I’ve always thought it wrong. Why can they not do what they did with the promotional tyres, shown when the company got the supply contract – see below

Bahrain – The right decision?

Today, the authorities in Bahrain called off the Formula 1 Grand Prix, in the wake of the unrest and protests that have been taking place throughout the country. This ends days of speculation as to whether the race should be run or not, and the reasons why.

Ultimately, the call was made by the Crown Prince, who said the country had more important things to focus on. He is right, looking back on the news over the last week, with protesters being shot at, injured and killed by the army. Many people questioned why F1 should go there, and if it did, it would be associated with the bloodshed, especially as the Crown Price is reported to control military forces. As he also did most of the work to get the Bahrain track built, and the race to happen, there was even a question of F1 taking a political side if it went ahead.

Many fans also called for the cancellation. But a number I know of were saying it for the wrong reasons. They wanted the race dropped from the calendar, because last year’s event was about as interesting as watching drying paint on growing grass. It’s true, I found it boring. After all, it is a Tilke circuit. But regardless of whether there’s overtaking or not, it is not the be all and end all of what is happening in the Middle Eastern country right now.

Why do I think it should have been cancelled? Simply, for safety reasons. Those saying it shouldn’t go ahead as it would side with a political view, the Crown Prince and the Royal Family, who are part of the problem for the protesters, are not looking at the fact that the race has been on the calendar since 2004. Every year, the Crown Prince has overseen it, in fact, without him, there would be no race. If it goes there later this year, or next year, it will still be in his vision. So F1 cannot escape a political siding on that front.

But the safety of the teams, the drivers, the mechanics, the backroom staff, the media, the fans who travel to the event, would had been a worry. The safety of those who would protest at the race too, and the police and army members who would be there to protect, must also be considered. The race is broadcast all over the world, and it is sanctioned by the Bahrain Government. Protesters would have a global platform to air their views, while at the same time, the army would use all force possible to keep the race running as smoothly as they can. However, they couldn’t use the same levels of force as seen last week, when six protesters were killed and dozens injured. A stand-off there could have led to riots, violence and who knows what. The opportunity for a global platform to push for reform is something that would be taken advantage of.

Ultimately, Bahrain needs to sort this out, and having a global sporting event overseen by tanks and the threat of protest when the sport doesn’t really have anything to do with the situation would not help. It would be like arguing with your partner, and inviting your friends around to watch. The best decision has been taken, and hopefully, both sides will be able to reach an agreement about how best the country is run. Until then, Formula 1 is not a priority.

F1 2010 – The game

I haven’t written about this yet. Mainly because at the moment, this blog is a fans reflections, and not a bona fide media outlet for F1 news and reviews. When I say at the moment…

Anyway, I’m counting down the days until the release of F1 2010 with a mixture of excitement and disappointment. Why the latter? Well I don’t own an XBox, or a Playstation 3, and my personal laptop with its highly spec’d circuitry is broken. In fact, it’s broken badly, and I cannot as yet afford its repair. So I’m stuck with my fathers laptop, which is good, but not high on its specifications. I actually need a new processor and a new graphics card if I want to play F1 2010. My mother’s computer may be slightly higher quality, I’ll be checking tonight…

I’ve played F1 games on the consoles before now, and hated them. The last one I actually bought was F1 World Grand Prix II for the Nintendo 64. Since then, I’ve borrowed or rented. Each one has left me disappointed. I never actually wanted to buy them. Why? Because they smacked of being an arcade racer. When I play a F1 game, I want to feel like I’m driving the car, and controlling it. From what I’ve read, and what I’ve seen, F1 2010 lets you do that.

In fact, on the PC, I’m a huge fan of the Geoff Crammond Grand Prix games. Actually being placed in the cockpit, and being able to control pit strategy, what tyres to use (at the time anyway) and racing for long periods as though you are the driver made it more of a challenge. There were problems, things I wished could have been done better. I wished that the player could control the pit lane speed limit, rather than the CPU, so that if a mistake was made, a penalty could be given. I wanted damage to necessitate a pit stop, or a retirement, rather than a magical fix. When I cut a chicane, I didn’t want to be slowed down automatically, but to be given a penalty. Finally, I wanted a safety car period if there was a pile up of CPU cars, rather than a very, and impossibly, quick recovery team.

Now there will be no safety car in F1 2010, but damage will require a visit to the pits, speed limits will be controlled by the driver, and penalties will be served in the pit lane – on certain modes anyway. That is perfect, and makes the experience more realistic. Add to this the fantastic graphics, the latest circuits and drivers (except Yamamoto, or Heidfeld) and this promises to be more than an arcade game, but a proper sim instead. You can feel the tyres going off, you race as your team is set, so don’t expect to get in a HRT and be a hero straight away. In career mode, you don’t even get much say in car set up – instead your experienced team-mate leads the way in that, and you learn from them. This promises to be better than GP4 – although I’ll withhold that judgement until I’ve played it…

If that laptop works, I’ll be playing F1 2010 on Friday. I’ll post a full review then. For now, I’ll leave you with the official video of the game. I think you’ll agree it’s stunning graphically.

Article 39.1 doesn’t work

Yesterday, many cried outrage. Ferrari, found guilty by the stewards of the German Grand Prix of instigating team orders, seemed to get away with it at the World Motorsport Council meeting in Paris. Many will say it is a case of the FIA supporting their favourite team, that if it had been McLaren, the book would well and truly have been thrown.

I will admit, I was a little incensed. I think even the most hardcore Ferrari fan will admit that Massa was given a coded instruction to let Fernando pass. One respected F1 journalist called the outraged “Ferrari anti-fans” – well I can tell you now I am not one. I found that term insulting. I am not against Ferrari, I respect every team in the sport. I am a racing fan, and in that Grand Prix, in that manoeuvre, there was no racing.

So we believe there were team orders, and obviously so do the stewards who imposed the fine. But can it be proved? No, and this is where Article 39.1 does not work.

All we have to go on, the evidence, is that Rob Smedley told Massa in a slightly abrupt and sarcastic tone that his team-mate was faster, and then called him a good lad, and apologised after Alonso had got by. There was no official call to move over. Ferrari can then say that they gave no such instruction, and it was the driver’s decision, not an order. Smedley’s lack of emotion can be described as being down to the fact his driver was slower, and wouldn’t last in the lead. Where exactly did Ferrari tell Massa to move over and let his team-mate pass?

Other team orders have been seen this season. In Turkey, McLaren drivers we told to save fuel, effectively ending their race and keeping them holding station. Why was there no outrage over this? Most likely because one driver was not asked to move over to let another driver take the position. I think this is where the onus is on Ferrari – they manipulated the result by having one driver take the place of another, not by telling them to hold station. There is still the belief that in Turkey, had it been Button leading from Hamilton, the same ‘fuel save’ order would have been given.

I’ll point to another instance of team orders going unpunished, again a blatant one, and again, ironically, involving Alonso. At Renault, in Canada one year, Fisichella was told to ‘have a go at the car in front, or let Fernando have a go instead’ – nothing was said about this, which is obviously an instruction to pass the guy in front or let your team-mate pass you. Another example of “Fernando is faster than you”.

So teams can still give coded orders, and claim it is up to the driver that they moved over. It is then up to the FIA to prove that an order was given, which is hard unless the specific ‘move over’ words are spoken. Even inconsistency in the lap times can be explained by the argument that it was the driver’s decision to slow down. Article 39.1 bans explicit team orders, but it cannot reasonably be enforced.

I am against team orders of any kind. I dislike it when a driver is told to hold station, not just let a team-mate pass. I wasn’t happy that McLaren did it in Turkey, I wasn’t happy when Brawn did it some times last year. I would love to see team orders banned. But as last night proved, the rule needs to be enforceable, and I think it will take a long time to find one that is. Perhaps that’s why the FIA have passed the question over to the F1 Working Group.