This blog has now closed. Please visit my new blog, Stepreo.

Archive: Albert Park

Does Montreal belong in today's F1 calendar?

12 June 2008 18:56

The main talking point in the run-up to this year’s Canadian Grand Prix was the disintegrating track. Throughout qualifying the circuit was breaking up, leaving marbles and other debris off the racing line.

This isn’t the first time the Montreal surface has caused problems — but this year it came earlier. The organisers blamed this year’s problems on the evolution of the cars. But that is a poor excuse. Every year the track breaks up more and more, so the organisers should be prepared for this eventuality every year. If they can’t lay tarmac that can cope with what an F1 car will give it, they shouldn’t be holding an F1 Grand Prix.

Another point, as noted by Keith at F1Fanatic last week, is that F1 is beginning to look too fast for the tight confines of the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve. Of course, Canada isn’t the only race to be held on a street circuit — Monaco being the obvious example.

However, the Circuit de Monaco is the slowest on the calendar so the likelihood of a Robert Kubica-style horror-smash is pretty low. Meanwhile, the Albert Park circuit has plenty of space for run-off areas, gravel traps and the like.

Canada has the close, punishing walls of Monaco with the dizzying speeds of Monza. So when a car leaves the track, it can spell disaster, just as it did with Robert Kubica last year.

Another problem with the Montreal circuit is the tight space requirements. The whole circuit is built on a man-made island. As such, there is little scope for altering the circuit or increasing the run-off areas. The best the organisers could do to mitigate against another Kubica-style crash in the run-up to the hairpin was to move the wall forward in an attempt to change the angle of impact. Is that enough for today’s safety-conscious F1 standards?

In part, it is these characteristics that make the Canadian Grand Prix such an exciting event year-in, year-out. There is so much history at the circuit as well. Not many circuits stay on the calendar for 30 years running. Today the Canadian Grand Prix is significant as the only F1 event in North America, and one of just two in the Americas as a whole.

But no-one likes to see a driver involved in a big accident. It could have been so much worse for Robert Kubica who escaped uninjured, but whose feet were sticking out of the monocoque by the time the wreck came to a stand-still.

If the circuit cannot improve its standards in terms of safety and tarmac break-up, it has to be concluded that F1 has now outgrown the narrow confines of the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve. If the Canadian Grand Prix had to be dropped, it would be the ideal time to bring back the United States Grand Prix — an event that is conspicuous by its absence from the F1 calendar.

5 comments

Thoughts on Australia and Malaysia

23 March 2008 17:32

Categories: Report

Well I didn’t get a chance to post my thoughts on the Australian Grand Prix. The Malaysian Grand Prix came around so quickly. It’s a bit much to have back-to-back races straight after the off season — like being thrown in at the deep end. Anyway, it’s a good opportunity now for me to get my thoughts together about the first two rounds of the season.

The first thing to point out is the apparent unpredictability of the season. Even though both races turned out to be relatively easy for the winners, each of them struggled in the other Grand Prix. Both podiums were occupied by three different teams, and no driver has been on the podium for both races.

It is probably fair to say that most people expected Ferrari to dominate at Melbourne — myself included. Ferrari looked to have the upper hand during winter testing and stand to benefit from McLaren’s turmoil over the winter. How wrong the predictions turned out to be though.

Both Ferrari drivers looked embarrassingly out of their depth without driver aids — Massa in particular. With Räikkönen it is probably fair to say that rather than being caught out by the new rules, the Finn simply had one of his occasional off days laden with uncharacteristic mistakes.

But the icing on the cake was Ferrari’s slew of reliability problems. Räikkönen slowed to a halt during qualifying with a fuel pressure problem and his race was cut short by an engine problem. Other problems cropped up during practice in Malaysia. Moreover, Ferrari-equipped Toro Rosso and Force India cars have had some engine-related problems in both races as well. All-in-all, it was Ferrari’s worst start to the season for around a decade and a half. So much for the pre-season predictions!

It hasn’t been plain sailing for McLaren though. I have covered the qualifying incident before, so I won’t repeat it. Australia was quite a breeze for them — the perfect way to return after the torrid events of 2007. But they didn’t have the luck or the speed in Malaysia.

Hamilton in particular was scruffy during qualifying and he carried some strange tyre wear issues into the race. A disastrous pit stop cost time in itself and probably caused aerodynamic problems for the rest of the race as the front rim shield was moving with the wheel instead of staying stationery as intended. This begs the question though — was Hamilton running with a moving aerodynamic device, therefore driving illegally?

Kovalainen has had a solid start to the season, cementing his reputation as a reliable and fast driver. He can probably be happier with his first two races than most drivers.

So, McLaren were strong in Australia and Ferrari had the upper hand in Malaysia. This is pointing towards a repeat of last season where the championship was close but few of the actual races were. The fortunes of the two teams may yo-yo according to how the cars suit the circuit.

It also looks as though the pre-race predictions that there was going to be a tight midfield were on the mark. It is difficult to see a clear ranking of the teams from 3rd downwards.

My first impression is that BMW are very strong. Those pre-season balance issues are clearly a thing of the past, which is wonderful to see. I love to see BMW doing well, and I have to say that going by the first two races it even looks as though, with a bit of luck, they could get their first win this season.

Both drivers have impressed. Robert Kubica has been particularly strong in qualifying. A poor strategy certainly cost him in Australia, and according to Piotr in the comments here it was reported that Kubica had a throttle problem. That went largely unnoticed in the British media from what I saw. He certainly made amends in Malaysia with a near flawless drive to second.

Heidfeld was stunning in Australia but bad luck hampered him in Malaysia. Who knows where he could have qualified if he didn’t have to pick his way past so many slow moving cars. Luck didn’t improve for him during the race and I feel we really didn’t see his full potential at all during the weekend. And he still finished 6th! Not bad going.

A tale of two races for Williams. Nico Rosberg did a fantastic job to finish 3rd in Australia, and Nakajima collected points as well. It looked as though Williams were back near the top where they belong.

But Malaysia was little short of a disaster from start to finish for Williams. Rosberg’s race was compromised by a needless incident with Glock on lap 1. Meanwhile, Nakajima’s race was obviously awful. Despite a relatively promising period towards the middle of the race, a puncture put paid to his race in the end.

We can’t forget Nakajima’s coming-together with Kubica in Australia. It is the kind of mistake you expect rookies to make. But if he is still doing that sort of thing by the end of the season, it will become unacceptable. We shall wait and see. Pre-season I cited Nakajima as my dark horse of the season, but he has done little to demonstrate that I was right.

Red Bull probably come next, and they look like they have the speed to regularly contend for decent points hauls. But the big question mark surrounding them is, as it was last year, reliability. You would have thought that sorting out their reliability problems would be their top priority, but if anything the problems have become much, much worse.

So the gearbox doesn’t — so far — appear to be causing too much grief. Instead, the Red Bull cars are afflicted with a plethora of silly little niggles. In particular, the Red Bull appears to be frighteningly fragile — to the extent that the stewards have been requiring explanations for the way that the car simply disintegrates if someone coughs on it.

Craig made a really good point that it seems to be a trait of Adrian Newey’s. A few years ago the McLarens were similarly fragile (and, incidentally, unreliable). Now Red Bull have the same affliction.

Besides plain old mechanical failures, the Red Bull has fallen to pieces in quite frightening ways. Firstly, there was the moment in FP2 in Malaysia where a simple trip over the kerbs absolutely wrecked David Coulthard’s suspension and sent him into a violent crash that eventually sent one of his wheels flying off. To have wheels flying about is a big no-no in safety terms, and it’s no wonder that the stewards were worried.

Then during the race, Mark Webber made a slightly aggressive entrance into the pitlane. That was enough to knock off his rear light. This is potentially another major problem were it to rain, which isn’t exactly out of the question in Sepang.

Then there was Coulthard’s coming-together with Felipe Massa in Australia. Normally you would expect Massa’s car to have the most damage, but Coulthard’s damage was major. The way the suspension fell apart then was really quite odd to my eyes.

Incidentally, on that incident, I take Coulthard’s side there. I am not DC’s biggest fan, but I really think Massa was far too ambitious to try that kind of move from that far back. It is true that Coulthard shut the door abruptly, but Massa shouldn’t have been there in the first place in my view.

Toro Rosso have the worst of all worlds when it comes to reliability. They have had their fair share of problems with last year’s car which they are still running. When they get their new car (essentially the same as Red Bull’s chassis), it will only pile on the problems. And they have that apparently unreliable Ferrari engine in the back.

Toro Rosso have had a good start to the season though. Starting the season with last year’s car has probably been an advantage to them. The trick is choosing the right time to switch to the new one.

Sébastien Bourdais impressed greatly in Australia before having that engine failure. He could buck the trend when it comes to drivers who have arrived in F1 from IRL / ChampCar who have tended to be out of their depth in F1. A needless spin in Malaysia has put a dampener on that prospect however.

Meanwhile, Vettel is further improving his reputation as F1′s new hot property. He’s looked great during some sessions, but it hasn’t come together for him during the races yet. No doubt he will soon be scoring points again for Toro Rosso.

The jury is still out on Toyota. We haven’t seen what Glock is capable of yet. But Trulli did really well in Malaysia. He set the fastest time in Q2, started 3rd on the grid and finished 4th. Not bad by Toyota standards. I wonder if he was on to something when he said that Toyota would be the surprise of the season.

Renault are disappointing. Alonso was lucky to get 4th in Australia. He won’t be able to get many points very easily this season. The Renault car just isn’t there. It’s possibly the 7th fastest car on the grid now — what a fast decline. Piquet had a bad Australian weekend, and a completely inconspicuous Malaysian weekend. He will have to up his game, but he has time to do that.

Honda are making some good progress. Not much else to point out except that they should, morally, have scored some points by now. They will do eventually, and they are looking much better than they did last year.

Just shows you what having a guy like Ross Brawn in charge can do. I have to say though, I found it deeply ironic that pitstop strategy genius Brawn’s first race in charge saw perhaps the most disastrous pitstop I have ever seen. Barrichello had to enter the pits while the pitlane was closed. Then his lollipop man lifted the lollipop too early, meaning that some mechanics were toppled over as Barrichello sped away. Then Barrichello ran through the red light at the end of the pitlane. Okay, so none of that was really Ross Brawn’s fault, but it was still quite funny.

Force India need to improve a bit more to fulfil their pre-season promise. At least they will not be permanent fixtures at the back of the grid.

That status goes to Super Aguri. But I suppose really they will feel luck simply to be there.

All-in-all, there are still plenty of unanswered questions. But the mixed-up nature of the results so far is very promising for a close Championship. I’m looking forward to Bahrain already!

2 comments

Australia and night races: why?

11 March 2008 20:09

Categories: Opinion

I have written before about the stick the Australian Grand Prix bosses are getting from all angles. Even since I wrote that post, Bernie Ecclestone’s demands have become ever more extreme. In particular, Mr Ecclestone’s current obsession with night races appears to have deepened. His comments suggest that he very much wants to have his cake and eat it. For me, the logic behind night races is muddled and confused.

We know that Bernie Ecclestone wants Formula 1 to expand its reach throughout the globe, particularly into Asia. The motivation behind this approach is fairly sound. Take F1 to the people of Asia, and the people of Asia will come to F1, building on the sport’s strong fanbase in Europe and expanding it eastward.

However, I wonder if Bernie Ecclestone’s motives are really as noble and simple as that. The more this project continues, the more it begins to look like Bernie Ecclestone is simply out to persuade gullible governments of developing countries to pay through the nose for the privilege of having an F1 race. Many of these governments will do anything to feel like members of the western club of developed nations, and where better to start than that most global — yet still quintessentially western — of sports, motor racing?

Yet, you have to wonder if these governments are really getting value for money. I think not. How long will it take before the good people of Bahrain, Singapore, Abu Dhabi, et al. realise they are being swindled?

Until that happens, it is by exploiting this situation that Bernie Ecclestone is able to pull the same trick on not-so-gullible western governments. “Look at all these other Grands Prix that are subsidised,” he says. “Why can’t you do the same?” This is the heart of Ecclestone’s demands to the organisers of the British, French and Australian Grands Prix among others that have the Sword of Damocles dangling above them.

The demands for a night race show up Ecclestone’s muddled thinking and hypocrisy. The idea behind night races is so that the ‘flyaway’ races can be broadcast on prime time television in Europe, where F1′s strongest base of support is. But this completely contradicts the supposed big idea behind hosting races in places like Asia in the first place.

Why take F1 to Asia then make the residents of these places get up in the middle of the night to watch them? Why, indeed, should the residents of Melbourne — or, indeed, Singapore City — be asked to put up with wailing F1 engines at 3am?

Meanwhile, the fact that the time difference means that European F1 fans have to get up in the middle of the night to watch the Australian Grand Prix is one of the things that defines us as F1 fans. We like to get up at silly o’clock to watch F1 — it is part of the quaint charm of the Australian and Japanese Grands Prix. Perhaps, like Ollie, I might not even be interested in F1 today had I not viewed Formula 1 as a cheeky opportunity to stay up late at night as a youngster.

Okay, so not all fans will be bothered to get up at 3am to watch this weekend’s Australian Grand Prix. But there will be a damn sight more Europeans than Asians willing to get up at 3am for F1. The big idea behind night races has now unravelled.

The only other thing a night race has going for it is the pure spectacle of seeing F1 cars racing under floodlights. I am sorry, but I just can’t get excited about that.

I watched last weekend’s Qatar MotoGP, the first race to be held under floodlights. But it was clear that the night time conditions added little to the spectacle. The only time it looked much different was from the overhead helicopter view of the circuit. Apart from that, the only difference was a few funny shadows. Big whoop!

By the end of the race, the BBC’s excellent commentators Charlie Cox and Steve Parrish (take note ITV — the Beeb know how to cover a motor race properly!), were just asking themselves, “Why a night race?” The best answer was, because we can. Is that reason enough?

The commentators also touched on the environmental impact. When Formula 1 is supposedly trying to become a greener sport, it is now asking race organisers to generate ridiculously huge amounts of electricity.

Many of the big ideas that Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley propose contradict each other in fundamental ways. The lack of joined-up thinking in Ecclestone’s current demands for night races, Asian venues and street circuits astonishes me.

5 comments

More woes for Australian Grand Prix organisers?

7 March 2008 17:28

Categories: News, Opinion

Over the past few weeks there have been a number of stories surrounding the Australian Grand Prix. It must seem as though everyone wants to throw stones at Ron Walker and co.

Of course, this is nothing new. Bernie Ecclestone’s carping criticisms are par for the course whenever any circuit’s contract is coming up for renegotiation. Melbourne has most recently been feeling the heat.

And ever since the Australian Grand Prix moved to Albert Park back in 1996, environmental campaigners and pressure groups such as Save Albert Park have been trying their best to do away with the race. This report of a recent radio interview with Ron Walker highlights the increasingly hostile attitude that many Australians appear to be taking towards the Melbourne grand prix.

Due to its apparent political unpopularity, the race’s organisers have been trying their best to articulate the case for keeping the race in Melbourne in terms of the economic benefits and the race’s popularity in terms of attendance figures. But in the face of mounting pressure their case has begun to fall apart.

Increasingly it looks as though the race organises have been massaging attendance figures in order to project a better picture than is really the case. According to a report on Pitpass a few weeks ago, the “official” attendance figures include freebies, school excursions, corporate tickets and even competition prize tickets that haven’t been used! Despite the use of a variety of schemes to encourage people to attend, grandstands can look pretty empty.

A recent story published in The Age has raised some eyebrows in Australia. The newspaper wrote a report highlighting some home truths about Australian Grand Prix attendance.

Among the interesting information in the report is the fact that the organisers do not even know how many people attend the event. Nevertheless, organisers advertise it as “the best-attended grand prix in the world”, citing a figure of 301,000. Meanwhile, the Save Albert Park campaign group, using a more open and transparent process, have worked out that the “official” figure has been inflated by as much as 45%. Most astonishingly, the “official” figure is said to include “drivers, car mechanics, grid girls, hospitality staff, and even race bosses”.

As you can see if you have visited The Age website, the story now comes complete with a honking great “clarification” in bold writing at the top. According to Crikey, the way this has been handled is causing consternation among the paper’s staff.

The word around The Age newsroom is that after reporter Ben Doherty’s story was published, he was called in to editor [Andrew] Jaspan’s office to meet Grand Prix executives and answer their queries. This is extraordinary. Traditionally, editors shield their reporters from this kind of pressure, unless there is a clear case of error or misconduct. Even then, it is the editor’s role to deal with the interested parties.

Furthermore, the “bullshit” clarification does little to undermine the story. The very length of the clarification is apparently unprecedented.

The case for the Australian Grand Prix remaining in Melbourne appears to be fairly flimsy. In the face of increasing public dismay about taxpayers’ money being spent on the race, the race’s organisers appear to be adopting strong-arm tactics in order to keep a lid on the debate.

They used to call it a “great place for a race”. But are the days of Albert Park as an F1 venue numbered?

Any thoughts on this? Would you be sad to see Melbourne go? What possible alternative venues are there for the Australian Grand Prix?

H/T Colin Campbell

5 comments

F1 struggling to hold 11? I think not

2 January 2006 17:14

Categories: Formula 1

When I was growing up watching Formula 1, there were always 22 cars. It seemed to be a kind of unwritten rule of F1, that there were 11 teams and 22 cars. Then, with rumblings from Honda and the arrival of Toyota, there seemed destined to be 12 or even more teams on the grid. Then 2001 came along and some wee teams went broke, and we were left with just ten teams. The 107% rule was ditched only a few years ago.

Races aren’t meant to start with fewer than 20 cars (we don’t mention Indianapolis), and I think there is meant to be space for 24 cars before, presumably, some form of pre-qualifying has to take place.

So I am struggling to see how Melbourne and other circuits could possibly be having problems with accommodating an 11^th team in F1. A Grand Prix has been held there every year since 1996, yet:

Melbourne’s facilities were pretty mcuh state-of-the-art 10 years ago but nothing much has changed since then. The design is such that adding an additional building to the existing five units (the administration building plus four garage buildings) would not be easy and there would inevitably be questions of cost and whether building should be allowed.

If it’s the case that “nothing much has changed” since 1996, then why are they worrying about fitting in an 11^th team when they managed it perfectly well a decade ago? Besides which, those responsible are surely aware that at any point in the future there could be more than ten teams in Formula 1?