Gaining an Advantage

In the days when I used to race single-seaters, one of the circuits we'd visit was Pembrey, in Wales. It's an interesting little circuit, about a mile and a half long, with a couple of reasonable quick corners.

One of these corners, Dibeni, would always be mentioned in the drivers' briefings. Because it was a long, double-apex corner, with a lot of tarmac on the inside, there was a tendency for drivers to shorten the corner by running their inside wheels across the white line.

The Clerk of the Course made it quite clear that if we were seen doing it, we would be shown a warning flag, and if we did it again afterwards, the black flag (Go direct to Jail, do not pass Go etc).

Note that this had nothing to do with passing another car. Just gaining an advantage.

So why don't the stewards at a GP enforce the "cars must remain on track" consistently?

Which would mean, looking at yesterday's race, that anyone leaving the track at Turn 3 (eg Rosberg, Webber) or on the exit of Turn 5 - or maybe 6 (Kimi, Vettel, probably just about everybody) should have been served with a drive through. I certainly don't think that Grosjean gained more of an advantage by leaving the track than Vettel did by repeatedly pushing the limits of the track.

F1 drivers are greedy. If they believe that it's possible to get away with something, they will do it. Firm and consistent enforcement of the rules is the clearest approach.

Ouch

This isn't news, but I was looking at the championship standings today and noticed something that, well, it didn't surprise me, but it was still a shock.

Everyone says that Felipe Massa is having a bad year, and isn't good enough for Ferrari. And yet he has scored more points than the two McLaren drivers added together.

That really shows just how much they are suffering in Woking. I just hope they have at least one good result at either Spa or Monza when the cars are running in low-drag specification. At least nobody will be running any downforce...

The Fragility of Life

I was on a tram yesterday, heading out to The Orange Cinema, that great lakeside viewing experience, to watch a film about getting old (The Quartet). It's especially lovely on a warm sunny evening, which it was.

Suddenly, the tram bell rings, brakes are applied hard and there's a thud. A woman is whirling past the window I'm sitting next to. I see her fall to the ground; the back of her head hitting the ground hard.

There is no movement.

A feeling of helplessness, tempered by the knowlege that at least 50% of the Swiss on the tram will be trained in first aid. They spring into action but there is ân obvious reluctance to move her at all.

I get off the tram, I'm right by the front. There is a bicycle lying under the front of the tram. It looks like the woman decided to sneak in front of the tram at the tram stop, probably didn't hear it and didn't look. She wasn't wearing a helmet either.

I decide that I cannot do anything, and that staring is pointless. I leave and complete my journey on foot but I find I keep wondering if that was the right thing to do. I wonder if she lived, or what her injuries were. As I got out of the tram, I noticed her face had changed colour to a sort of bluey redness. It's not exactly haunting me but I do keep looking in the local newspaper sights to see what's been reported. Nothing yet, other than a few other accidents involving trams, trains, trucks where people will never complete their journey.

Many other relatives and friends whose lives have changed in an instant.

What sort of flag is that?

Very pleased to see Mark on the podium yesterday. He is one of the best drivers on the grid, and very high up the list of decent blokes.

But what was that behind him? There was an outcry from the Australian side of the sofa: "That's not an Australian flag! It's horrible".

And I looked and agreed. Something didn't look right.

So I investigated (ie, had a look on google and fiddled with a pic from the podium). Here's what the flag looked like according to FOM:

and here's what it should really look like:

Obviously the colours are a bit out, but it's the aspect ration and the size of the stars that make it look wrong. Wrong in the sense that it looks like a child has drawn it.

I'd be very unhappy if it was my national flag, and frankly the Union Flag quadrant does look nasty here - although it's actually quite close to the 5:3 aspect ration commonly used on land for the Union Flag. At sea, the ratio is apparently normally 2:1, like the Australian flag, which is not surprising as the Australian flag is based on the design of the White/Red Ensigns that you'll see on ships of the British Royal/Merchant Navies.

Given that Bernie is normally such a stickler for detail, I'm very surprised that he allows this sort of thing. Can we go back to real flags over the podium please?

Playing with tyres.

I think Lotus have a point.(see Autosport)

But so do Pirelli.

Now that #testgate has allowed us, other than Ferrari's pathetic Horse Whisperer, to move on, we don't have to talk about tyres any more do we? Regretably, tyres will remain the most important variable throughout this, or probably any other, F1 championship.

During 2012, Pirelli were asked to make changes to the tyres for this season, to make the races more entertaining. This they did, and I for one am happy with how things have been going. Lotus, a team with a smaller budget than Red Bull and Ferrari, have been able to challenge the giants by making better use of the more sensitive tyres. This looks set to change now that Pirelli are selecting Hard and Medium tyres for Hungary, rather than Medium and Soft as they did last year.

There could be several reasons for this, but it's certain that this is the most conservative choice that could have been made, and that's not what Pirelli were originally asked to do. And this is not a question of safety, nobody is suggesting that tyre failure will result.

Pirelli seem, understandably, to be concerned about open criticism from teams, especially about tyre wear and degradation. I've said before (and you've probably guessed that I'm about to say it again) that the solution is to give the teams the choice of which tyres to use, rather than specify two compounds that must be used.

At that point, it would be no use Red Bull saying that the mediums degrade too much, especially if Lotus can get them to work. Similarly there's no way Lotus, or anyone else, can complain if Red Bull do a better job with the hard compound. it would simply be the car making a better job of using those tyres.

Pirelli simply supply their tyres, which have clearly been designed brilliantly to do the job that was asked of them and the teams do their best with them.

I'd like to see each team given three or four sets of each compound at the beginning of the race weekend, with three sets returned to Pirelli on Friday, and three more on Saturday.

Everyone would know which teams have how many of each compound left for the race, which would give the TV strategists plenty to talk about.

Even better from Pirelli's point of view, there would be no more talk of Options and Primes. Just the four different compounds. And by removing the need to run more than one compound, teams can run a zero stop strategy if it looks workable.

It would need a regulation change, but it shouldn't be impossible to get it through, especially as Pirelli have a relationship with each team, and F 1 is in the situation where it desperately needs a tyre manufacturer for 2014 onwards.

Please?

Why isn't the FIA tougher?

Every now and then, usually on a weekly basis, I get wound up about the vast amount of money flowing out of motorsport and into the pockets of the F1 CRH (Commercial Rights Holder) and his associates at CVC.

And then I think, well, there's not much that anyone can do, and let's face it, Bernie did legally buy the commercial rights for the next 100 years. Even though everyone at the time said it was way too cheap. It's the one thing that Max Mosley did as president that I really didn't like, and still feel it was an unfair transaction.

But that doesn't explain why the FIA doesn't try to buy the rights back, and then resell to a more racing-friendly party. Having first redefined the governance so that the FIA remains in charge, and isn't reliant on an external party to negotiate things like Concorde agreements.

OK, it might not be cheap, but Bernie and CVC clearly believe that there are buyers in place, as they plan to float in the near future. Wouldn't it make sense for the FIA to put together a syndicate, and excercise their power over the regulations to keep Bernie's price from going up? After all, if Bernie knows someone wants to buy, he's no longer interested in selling; at least, not at the same price.

So Jean, grab the bull buy the horns and find someone to out-Bernie Bernie. He can't be the only person out there that can play hard-ball. Maybe a lawyer that could use the "German situation" to effectively lower the float price of CVC, but offer a "reasonable price" to take the problem away?

I'd volunteer myself, but I'm just not that clever.

The Joys of Golf

It's been a difficult few weeks recently, so it was good to get out for a weekend of golf with Paul and Clive in the New Forest.

The weather wasn't perfect, but the company was. It's an annual event and this was the first year that the trophy was awarded on handicap, so despite some brilliant play, Paul didn't get to retain the Cup.

Clive retained the spoon, though an ankle injury sustained while looking for my ball during FP1 probably had a lot to do with it.

But I was very happy to shoot two rounds under 100, which, while not great, is very good for me. Thanks boys!