This is part two of my series of posts reviewing the F1 season gone by. Last week I wrote about F1’s backmarkers. This week: my top 13 drivers.

13 — Alexander Wurz

When Alexander Wurz burst onto the scene in 1997, he was talked about as a hot prospect. I’d say he was the Nico Rosberg of his day. So the way his career panned out must be seen as a disappointment. He was unfortunate enough to fall into the trap of becoming a test driver, then becoming too good at being a test driver to be considered for a long-term drive.

His occasional races with McLaren were typical. He came across as a bit rusty, as though he had forgotten how to race as opposed to just drive the car. However, when he was on form he shone brightly.

The story was much the same this year with Williams — his first full-term drive with a team since 2000. Most of the time he looked off the pace, and was outclassed by team mate Nico Rosberg. But he had two or three stunning drives, which is why I have placed him so far up the list.

His drive in Canada led to a well-deserved third place. Of course, an element of luck was involved as the multiple safety car periods probably worked to his advantage. But even with luck playing a role, to have qualified 19^th and finish on the podium is good going.

More impressive in my view, though, was Wurz’s drive at the Nürburgring. He adapted to the fiercely changeable conditions better than most. Some said this was in part due to his knowledge of the local microclimate, as he used to live just opposite the circuit. But his immense experience was also at play as he got his Williams ahead of better cars.

12 — Sebastian Vettel

In a year of excellent rookie performances, Sebastian Vettel has been overshadowed a little bit. Drafted in at short notice to deputise for Robert Kubica at Indianapolis, Vettel got a little bit spooked at the first corner, but held his nerve for the rest of the race to grab a point.

It was to be his sole race for BMW. But a few races later a vacancy appeared at Toro Rosso, and Vettel took it. Some joked that, while Vettel scored a point in his F1 début, by signing for Toro Rosso he ensured that he wouldn’t score another point until at least 2009.

Those wags turned out to be wrong. On the one hand, he did not comprehensively outperform team mate Vitantonio Liuzzi, although it looked to me as though he did a bit better than Scott Speed. But undoubtedly the Toro Rosso was handy at some circuits towards the end of the season (perhaps sometimes due to rainy conditions) which helped Vettel.

Liuzzi as well as Vettel looked good towards the end of the season, but Vettel was able to capitalise on the opportunities more. He was running in third at Fuji until his infamous collision with Mark Webber, who was effectively his team mate. It was an unforgivable mistake, no matter what the mitigating circumstances were and Vettel obviously knew it. However, he went a long way to burying the memory of that incident by finishing an incredible fourth place at the next race in China.

A lot will hinge on the competitiveness of next year’s Toro Rosso. But given a semi-decent car, Vettel will have the capability to grab highly impressive results from time to time.

11 — David Coulthard

The thing that impresses me about David Coulthard is not so much his driving ability, but the fact that he shows no sign of running out of steam. He is F1’s oldest driver, and of the current crop only Rubens Barrichello has more experience. Usually that would be a sure sign that you’re off — even if you are Michael Schumacher. But DC just keeps on going.

Results this year were mixed, but mostly impressive. He started the year badly with a ludicrously over-ambitious move on Alexander Wurz which almost decapitated the Austrian. As accidents go, it was probably even more shocking than Robert Kubica’s because it demonstrated just how vulnerable drivers still are in that open cockpit.

Coulthard also other race-ending accidents, and of course he was also often the victim of the Red Bull’s dire reliability. But when he was able to finish, it was often in an impressive position. The end of the season was particularly strong, topped by a fourth place in Japan. No podiums like in 2006, but you can’t win them all.

10 — Mark Webber

What has Mark Webber done to deserve such terrible luck? While David Coulthard had his reliability problems from time to time, Mark Webber seemed to suffer all the time. Formula1.com reports that all but one of his seven retirements was caused by either gearbox, transmission or hydraulics.

When he managed to finish a race, though, it was more often than not in a high position. He was particularly impressive in the wet, as he grabbed a podium at the Nürburgring and was lining himself up for a win at Fuji until Vettel smashed into him.

Webber was also excellent at qualifying. He is a surprisingly high seventh on this year’s ’supergrid’ (where drivers are arranged according to average grid position).

9 — Robert Kubica

In a lot of ways Robert Kubica was a disappointment this season. There were a lot of good results — a slew of fourths and fifths. But his BMW car was handy and he was comprehensively outperformed by Nick Heidfeld.

Unfortunately, Robert Kubica’s 2007 season will mainly be remembered for that shocking accident in Montreal. For me, it was the lowest point of the season as there was a period of time where I feared the worst. It was a truly sickening accident to watch, and at one point Kubica experienced a force of 75g. Kubica was lucky to escape without any major injury (particularly since, by the end of the accident, his feet and ankles were completely exposed).

Kubica did not let the accident deter him. He was eager to take part at Indianapolis, but was ordered to take the week off by doctors. He bounced back at Magny-Cours, though, to finish fourth and went on to score in all but two of the remaining races. That is what makes people like Robert Kubica different to the likes of you and me.

8 — Nico Rosberg

I get the impression that people weren’t really sure what to make of Nico Rosberg at the end of 2006. This year he really cemented his reputation as a solid, reliable driver. Overall, he outperformed Alexander Wurz and Frank Williams seems rather keen on retaining his services. This is odd for Mr. Williams, who usually sees his drivers as disposable commodities.

Despite this, we are yet to see any real result from him. Yes, he is in the Williams which is not the best car. But even Wurz was seen towards the front of the field once or twice this year. Rosberg seems more comfortable in the midfield, and his best result is a solitary fourth (at Brazil, an awesome drive), although you’d be most likely to see him finish seventh.

Nico Rosberg is one of those drivers who is on the borderline for me. A lot will hinge on next year and how he adapts to the removal of traction control.

7 — Jenson Button

Okay, hear me out. A lot of people mocked Nick Fry when he said that this was Jenson Button’s best ever year. Indeed, Nick Fry’s unflappable optimism is often rather laughable, but I think he had a point on this matter.

Let us face facts. We all know that the Honda car was awful. And yet, Jenson Button has six points to his name this year. That is six more than Rubens Barrichello scored. In fact, Button largely outperformed Barrichello in every area this year. Button fought hard to wring results out of that car — and he managed it, particularly towards the end of the season.

I am not usually a fan of Jenson Button. However, this year has made me really appreciate how good he is in the wet. He put in an amazing qualifying performance at Fuji and was really unlucky to walk away from that race with nothing to show for it after getting involved in an accident during the race. Still, he came back in China to score an amazing fifth position.

But it was not just rainy conditions that allowed Button to score points. He broke his duck this year at the bone-dry Magny-Cours circuit. This year, Button has gone up in my estimation a great deal.

6 — Heikki Kovalainen

Kovalainen didn’t start the season too well. His Australian Grand Prix was so disastrous that Flavio Briatore said it couldn’t have been Heikki — it must have been his brother. Ouch!

But as Kovalainen got comfortable in the Renault, he began to put Giancarlo Fisichella in the shadow. His first truly great moment was in Canada. There he survived a race of attrition to finish fourth, leaving Kimi Räikkönen’s Ferrari behind, having started plum last.

Arguably better was his race in treacherous conditions in Fuji. He was helped out a bit by the collision between Webber and Vettel, but you wouldn’t begrudge Kovalainen the second position.

It really was a year of excellent rookie performances! Kovalainen came within a whisker of beating Tiago Monteiro’s record of most rookie race finishes in a row. Kovalainen finished every single race of the season bar Brazil, so the record — finishing his first sixteen races in a row — must be shared with Monteiro.

It is difficult to believe that Kovalainen is still uncertain to get a drive next season. He is undoubtedly talented, but it looks as though only McLaren would be willing to hire him next season — but would they want two relatively inexperienced drivers? Renault are too busy trying to woo Alonso, and reading between the lines it seems as though Kovalainen does not want to be team mates with Alonso.

5 — Felipe Massa

I still find it difficult to understand where Felipe Massa is at. He does have the ability to pull the rabbit out of the hat. He is a proven race winner, a deserved race winner indeed. And let us not forget that for the majority of the season he was McLaren’s closest rival in the Championship.

It is possible to say that the only reason he fell behind Räikkönen was because of an unlucky patch where the team messed up his qualifying chance in Hungary and a DNF in Italy due to suspension troubles. For a long time, Felipe Massa was being seriously considered as a potential World Champion.

But Massa yet again revealed himself to be far from the complete driver. He was made to look rather silly by Lewis Hamilton at Sepang. And his performance in the changeable conditions at the Nürburgring was embarrassingly bad.

You could also say that the only reason Massa was able to seize the initiative in the first place was due to the teething problems Räikkönen had at the beginning of the season. Two of his three wins were during this phase.

A lot of people were astonished that Felipe Massa had managed to extended his contract with Ferrari until 2010. I have heard that the tifosi prefer Massa to Räikkönen, but I cannot fathom why. Massa is just the sort of driver who I’d imagine would struggle without traction control, so next year will be very interesting indeed.

4 — Nick Heidfeld

It is amazing to think that a few years ago Quick Nick was almost finished in F1 terms. His lifeline came in the form of the Jordan team, which was by then deep into a trough. He impressed enough in that dire car for Williams to pick him up, and ever since he been associated with BMW.

Those years of perseverance have really paid off as he is now in a great car, with a team on the ascendancy and he has comfortably outperformed his head-turning team mate, Kubica. Who would have thought back in 2004 that Nick Heidfeld would ever rake in a points haul of 61? This is about twenty times what he got at Jordan!

Heidfeld had a slew of excellent results. He finished fourth five times, but he also scored two podiums. One was an impressive drive at Hungary where he fended off the threat from Fernando Alonso. Indeed, in Bahrain he made an amazing pass on the outside of Alonso. But he went one better at Canada to finish second in that hectic race. Nick Heidfeld comfortably established himself as the ‘best of the rest’.

3 — Lewis Hamilton

Undoubtedly the surprise of the year. Even those who raved about Hamilton’s GP2 performances were flabbergasted at just how well he was able to cope this season.

For me, his trademark is his audacious overtaking manoeuvres. At the start of the year his lightning starts were fearless as he made his way round the Alonsos and Räikkönens of this world as though they were little kids. Rivals ran wide as Hamilton drove the corners as though he were in a slot car. He psyched out Felipe Massa in Malaysia. He surprised Räikkönen at Monza with perhaps the move of the year.

Some have criticised Hamilton for being over-ambitious when overtaking. His move on Barrichello at Brazil, for instance, was derided as dangerous and stupid. But part of the art of overtaking is trying to work out if the other guy is risk-averse enough to get out of your way. If Hamilton had tried the same move on, say, Nakajima, it would be a legitimate criticism. But you have to look at the situation and say that Hamilton’s audacious overtaking moves have never yet resulted in an accident.

Lewis Hamilton’s other major strong point is his qualifying, particularly towards the end of the season. I could scarcely believe some of the lap times he managed to put in. Alonso was definitely put in the shade several times by Hamilton this season.

However, there is the bad side of Hamilton’s driving. He took several questionable actions throughout the season. His driving behind the Safety Car in Fuji was widely criticised, and was a contributory factor in the famous smash between Webber and Vettel. The employment of a crane to get his European Grand Prix going again was arguably illegal.

But his lowest moment came during qualifying for the Hungarian Grand Prix. His refusal to follow team orders and give Alonso his legitimate chance during qualifying (as per internal McLaren rules) set off a chain of events that essentially resulted in the breakdown of the relationship between Alonso and the rest of the McLaren team. Most sickeningly, the whole situation subsequently worked in Hamilton’s favour, so he felt no real punishment for his actions.

On track, too, Hamilton disappointed at the end of the season. To lose a 17 point lead in just two races when there were no mechanical problems, in a car as fast as the McLaren, just beggars belief. Hamilton’s cool head impressed at the start of the season, but clearly by the end the pressure was just too much for him.

Many will point out the fact that McLaren should not have left Hamilton out on shot tyres for so long at Shanghai. This is true, but it also ignores some important points. First of all, Hamilton was the only driver whose tyres were so badly worn out in the first place. This was due to his impatient start and his desperation to win at all costs (when he only needed fourth). Secondly, if Hamilton knew he needed new tyres he could have just pitted anyway (we all know how Hamilton likes to ignore team orders anyway!). Thirdly, it was Hamilton’s fault for entering the pits too quickly and spinning off.

Some also ask why McLaren put Hamilton on a three-stop strategy in Brazil. But the reality is that Hamilton blew his chances himself by going on the grass on the first lap. Once again, this was down to his impatience, and a desperation to take a position that he simply did not need to take.

Even leaving aside the question of whether or not Hamilton pressed the wrong button on the steering wheel, his chances were blown at that moment on the first lap. Even after that, his entire Brazilian Grand Prix performance was, in my view, quite nervy.

Overall, I would define Hamilton’s style this year as ‘impatient’. Sometimes this has worked to his advantage, as it did with his great overtaking manoeuvres at the start of the season. Sometimes it worked against him, as it did in China and Brazil. To become World Champion, Hamilton needs time to mature a bit in this respect. Perhaps he will tone down the exciting nature of his driving in order to do this.

2 — Fernando Alonso

Off the track, 2007 was a bit of a nightmare for Fernando Alonso. Even on the track it was quite bad, as his rookie team mate got the better of him on several occasions.

However, overall, Alonso’s performances were more consistent and demonstrated his extra experience. He had a few bad races. In Bahrain he was unable to fend off Nick Heidfeld, although seemingly Alonso’s car was damaged in transit, compromising grip levels. In Canada he was overtaken by Takuma Sato of all people (although Alonso was disadvantaged badly by the new Safety Car rules).

Alonso was also unusually off colour at Fuji. He spun off in the wet. It was a far cry from the Alonso we saw at Hungary in 2006.

By the end of the year it seemed clear that Alonso did not particularly want to win the Championship with McLaren. This was most obvious in Brazil. So we won’t know what he was capable of.

This year has damaged Alonso’s reputation because of certain off-track events. But on the track, Fernando Alonso is still, for my money, the best driver on the grid. However, this year he was outperformed by one driver in particular.

1 — Kimi Räikkönen

When Kimi Räikkönen burst onto the scene in 2001, who would have thought it would have taken him eight season to win his first World Championship? Räikkönen is the most experienced first time World Champion since Nigel Mansell. The debate will rage on about whether Räikkönen was unlucky with reliability at McLaren or he is a ‘car breaker’.

There are also constant question marks and innuendos about Räikkönen’s commitment to winning the World Championship and off-track antics of a different sort to what Alonso got up to. Let us not forget, though, that Räikkönen came unbearably close to winning the World Championship twice when he was at McLaren. So Räikkönen’s ability and willpower can not be in doubt.

A lot of people love Räikkönen for his cool attitude. He doesn’t give a hoot. He just gets in the car and drives the wheels off it. Meanwhile, he likes to have fun off the track. He is the closest contemporary racing drivers get to the ‘playboy’ model of the stereotypical 1970s grand prix driver.

But on race weekend his approach is laid back, not reckless. At Brazil in 2006 he famously told Martin Brundle that he couldn’t be bothered watching Pelé present Michael Schumacher with a special trophy because he was taking a shit. You really can’t get much more relaxed than that, and I’m sure he was every bit as relaxed at this year’s Brazilian Grand Prix.

In this context, it is easy to see how Räikkönen just capitalised on the spat between Hamilton and Alonso. Räikkönen was not being put off, so he just drove ahead of them, pulled back a 17 point deficit and waved goodbye to the McLarens. Brilliant.

Räikkönen has the right attitude, and when he gets in the car nothing deters him. He won six races this year, more than anyone else.

However, even Räikkönen’s season was not perfect. He had a very bad patch at the beginning of the season. The blame was put on the transition to Bridgestones and the new Ferrari car, although if this was the case then it doesn’t explain why he won so easily at the very first race in Australia.

Luca di Montezemolo had to give Räikkönen a kick up the arse via the press. It worked — and from the French Grand Prix onwards it is impossible to find fault in Räikkönen’s season. A well-deserved Championship win.

Over the past couple of days there have been rumours that McLaren’s explanation for the sudden loss of drive in Lewis Hamilton’s car is not true. Seemingly, Lewis Hamilton actually let his finger slip on the steering wheel. Apparently he hit the ’start’ button, which forced Hamilton into rebooting the system, a process which took around 20 to 30 seconds.

McLaren are denying this, just like they denied the incident where Lewis Hamilton swore at his boss in Hungary. Similarly they fell on their own sword in China when Hamilton retired with shot tyres, even though there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Hamilton himself was pushing the tyres way too hard.

Pitpass appear to be standing by their source with careful wording, adding, “you would not believe who it was that told him about Hamilton’s ‘error’.”

Meanwhile, the peerless F1Fanatic blog has come up with the goods that suggest that Hamilton’s problems were all of his own making.

Firstly, a quote which rather gives the game away. This is from Eurosport.

My finger slipped on the steering wheel and I accidentally pressed the button used for the starting sequence. The car went into neutral and I had to reinitialize the system, that is, reload the gearbox management program.

(Update 25/10/2007: The journalist who originally broke the story says that the quote did not come directly from Lewis Hamilton, but stands by his report.)

Then, F1Fanatic dredged up a video that shows Lewis Hamilton pressing a button just as he slows down. The replay is in slow-motion, so it is a little bit difficult to tell what speed he is going at. But note how going into the corner he keeps up with the cars in front. As he goes through the corner his hand slips over a button second from the left on his steering wheel. Soon afterwards, cars start whizzing past him.

Of course, the British mainstream media will completely ignore all of the evidence, preferring to believe that only bad luck and unreliable machinery robbed “our Lew” of the World Championship.

I can envisage Lewis Hamilton on the stage at Sports Personality of the Year. Sue Barker says, “And of course, if it wasn’t for that gearbox problem in the last race you would have been World Champion this year.” Hamilton smiles guiltily.

And that’s saying something!

And would you credit it, it was by ITV-F1. WHY LEWIS IS TAKING THE FLAK, the headline screams, stomping its feet.

The article by Mark Hughes (who is normally one of the more sensible ITV-F1 people) starts as it means to go on, by taking a true event and completely twisting it out of shape:

When Lewis Hamilton put his car into the Shanghai pit lane’s gravel trap there was a lot of spontaneous and ill-concealed cheering in the non-British sector of the press room.

Yeah, do you know why? Because it was a spectacular event that turned the season on its head, just like when Nigel Mansell’s tyre exploded or when Michael Schumacher’s engine exploded last year. Not cheering when Hamilton beached his car in the gravel trap would be like not cheering when a goal is scored in the 89^th minute of the football World Cup final. Only the most partisan of people would be unable to see this.

For an explanation from journalists — journalists who are British, but who aren’t hopelessly biased like the morons at ITV — of exactly why there would be cheering in the press room, just listen to the latest edition of the BBC (yes, that is British Broadcasting Corporation) Chequered Flag podcast.

David Croft: You mentioned a stampede in the press room. I hear there was quite a cheer in the press room as well when Lewis went out. Is that right?

Jimmy Roberts: Well, it was more a cheer of… Unbelievable scenes. We can’t imagine what we’re watching. The thing is, Formula 1 — it never fails to excite, it never fails to generate moments of sheer sporting drama. It reminded me of when Nigel Mansell’s tyre blew in 1986, and it was just one of those moments where you just have to shout. There was just pandemonium.

[...]

Maurice Hamilton: I remember the reaction in ‘86. It’s an exclamation! “Whoa, look at that! How did that happen?” And the same thing, there’s Lewis Hamilton stuck in the gravel trap. I think the vision of that McLaren beached with its rear wheels spinning in the gravel will just live with Formula 1 forever. It’s one of those emblematic shots that people will forever remember.

In short, history was being made in front of our eyes. How can you just sit there? Despite the fact that even British mainstream journalists can see this, Mark Hughes is playing the usual game that British MSM journalists have been playing. According to them, it’s Brits versus the world (and Spain in particular).

You could even see this in some of the press coverage of the Stepneygate scandal, where some consumers of news were left with the impression that there was golden boy Britain’s Lewis Hamilton keeping his nose clean. It was those dirty Spaniards, Pedro de la Rosa and Fernando Alonso, who were at the centre of all this!

Let us just gloss over the fact that the real people who were at the centre of the scandal — Nigel Stepney and Mike Coughlan — were both British. But this just doesn’t fit in with the story that the racist British media wants to project. In this ITV-F1 article, Mark Hughes is pressing all of the same buttons, albeit a bit more subtly. You ought to be able to expect better from the country’s biggest commercial broadcaster. But I have given up.

Mark Hughes carries on through the article. I really wish it was good, but I am afraid it is just straw man after straw man.

Even Hamilton’s summoning for the marshals to push him out of the gravel was greeted with jeering by onlookers.

Just as it was when Michael Schumacher did the same thing. British journalists weren’t too keen about Michael Schumacher got pushed out of the gravel either. But even Schumacher never used a crane to re-join the race. Interestingly, Mark Hughes makes no mention of the crane incident anywhere in his article.

He goes on to take a look at Hamilton’s “on-track etiquette” before going on to talk about a number of Lewis Hamilton’s moves. Unfortunately, he paints a picture that all of the complaints about Hamilton’s etiquette are about hard moves. This is simply not the case.

Even so, though, let’s not forget how put out Hamilton was when Alonso played a similarly hard move on Hamilton at the Belgian Grand Prix. It’s so different when the boot’s on the other foot, huh? The other drivers lived with it, while Hamilton just started moaning about it.

Mark Hughes then completely twists the tale of Hamilton’s erratic driving behind the Safety Car at Fuji, completely glossing over the real issues. He mentions the first re-start, when Alonso was behind Hamilton. There is one particular point about this paragraph that makes me laugh so much (emphasis mine)!

On the restart behind the first safety car in Fuji he was perhaps a little over-aggressive in getting the jump on Alonso, braking so hard that Alonso (technically illegally) passed him to avoid an accident.

I love it! When Fernando Alonso does something technically illegal it merits a mention. As one of Hamilton’s defenders, Tom, said in the comments on another post on this blog, this rule is really a grey area — particularly if the car in front is effectively brake-testing.

But when Lewis Hamilton does something which is actually illegal, it is completely glossed over or just downright ignored in this article. The incident that provided the most controversy — the one when Hamilton brake-tested Webber and Vettel — does not get a single mention in this article. Yet this is the incident where it has been proved that Hamilton broke two rules.

First of all, Hamilton was driving erratically. This is against the rules, and there is no room for games behind the Safety Car. Drivers are not racing, and the purpose of the Safety Car is to make the track safer and to stop drivers from doing dangerous things. Hamilton did the complete opposite — as we can see from the number of accidents that happened in Safety Car periods compared to during the race.

Secondly, Hamilton strayed more than five car lengths behind the Safety Car. This is not some technicality that the FIA put in there for the hell of it. The Safety Car is designed to bunch the drivers up. This is partly to give the marshals plenty of time to clean up on-track debris. If the cars are more spread out, the marshals have less time (and less safety) to do this. Hamilton had complete disregard for this rule.

The FIA have since changed the rules so that a leader is allowed ten car lengths. This trick of changing a rule after it has been broken is usually reserved for pro-Ferrari purposes. And oh, how many times the British media has lambasted the FIA for it.

Hamilton effectively brake-tested Webber. Webber slowed down to avoid being “technically illegal” just like Alonso was. This is what caused Vettel to go straight into the back of him. It was all Hamilton’s fault, and you can see this in the video. But the British media just aren’t prepared to admit this — and you can see this in the fact that Mark Hughes has completely ignored this incident in his article.

So anyone with some vague notion of “Hamilton being controversial behind the Safety Car in Japan” will have the impression that Hamilton was completely in the right after reading this article. In reality, Mark Hughes has skirted round the issue completely. Nice piece of obfuscation there.

I find the views expressed by Alan Permane and Steve Nielsen in the latest Renault podcast interesting. You could say that they had a vested interest in Hamilton losing the Japanese Grand Prix, although they also say that he shouldn’t have been disqualified from the race, but given a grid penalty for China. Besides which, I think you would struggle to find many sensible F1-heads (that is, F1-heads that don’t have a vested interest in a British driver succeeding) disagreeing much with what they say.

Steve Nielsen: During the race, the only time we became aware of it was when the FIA came onto the intercom to us and said that Heikki [Kovalainen] should watch his distance to Lewis. Which is very unusual. What was implied was that we were too close — dangerously close — and so we conveyed that message to Heikki. And it wasn’t really until after the race, talking to a couple of the other drivers, and then the now famous bit of film that was on YouTube, that we became aware that Lewis actually was far from innocent in all of that and that his driving was questionable — very questionable in a couple of instances. And my own personal view is that he caused the accident between Vettel and Webber.

Alan Permane: Yeah, I find it a bit odd that Vettel got penalised, then they realised that actually it was not his fault, but we’re not going to penalise anybody. To me it was Lewis’s fault.

SN: And at that very race on Friday in the drivers briefing, Charlie [Whiting] told both the McLaren drivers that their driving behind the Safety Car at Monza — which was two races previous — had not been good enough. It was too erratic. And Lewis had a kind of — not a problem with it, but he certainly raised concerns and said he thought it was okay and was surprised that it wasn’t okay. And yet here we are two days later and he repeated it. And as Alan’s just said, for that to go totally unpunished, I’m a bit surprised at.

AP: What I find strange is that they felt that punishment was needed. And Vettel got that punishment. And then when the blame was reapportioned, or it was figured out it wasn’t [Vettel's] fault, that punishment [should] still [be] there, so whose fault was it? I don’t think it was just a racing incident or one of those things. It clearly looks like Lewis stops the car and it causes a bit of a pile-up. I think to exclude him from Fuji would have been way too much. That really would have been unfortunate for the Championship. But maybe a grid penalty or something in China, I dunno. Anyway, that’s all history now.

It is painfully clear to me that the FIA were aware that Lewis Hamilton was driving dangerously behind the Safety Car. Not only had they warned him about his driving at Monza, but they were also aware that he was doing exactly the same thing during the Japanese Grand Prix. We know this because after the accident between Vettel and Webber, Heikki Kovalainen was told by the FIA to keep an extra distance behind Hamilton during Safety Car periods.

Yet, they didn’t punish Hamilton for it. Yes, Hamilton really is getting all of the flak, isn’t he!

Back to Mark Hughes’s article.

There was also some glee from his detractors when Ron Dennis revealed that the circumstances leading to Alonso’s blocking of Hamilton in the Hungary pit lane during qualifying had been triggered by Hamilton’s non-compliance with a team request at the beginning of the session.

This, for me — and many other F1 fans — is the defining moment of Hamilton’s career so far. Yet, once again, Mark Hughes completely glosses over it. He even implies that Hamilton’s actions were somehow mitigated by the fact that there was “glee from [Hamilton's] detractors”. Give me a break!

Why do we have to keep on putting up with ITV’s awful, biased coverage?

Firstly — apologies for the lateness of my review of the Japanese Grand Prix. Another busy weekend spilled over into Monday, and is spilling over into Tuesday and Wednesday as well. (I am being very naughty by writing this post.)

There are so many talking points that it is difficult to know where to start.

I guess I should start by noting that it looks as though Lewis Hamilton will be this year’s World Champion. On the basis of his performance in treacherous conditions at Fuji, he fully deserves it. I still think that Fernando Alonso deserves to be World Champion more because I think he has been on balance the better driver. But it’s points that matter.

Hamilton’s drive at Fuji was solid and impressive. In a lot of ways it was a basic pole-to-flag drive for Hamilton. Besides a little run-in with Kubica, he had no real challenges to face. Not much impressive in that, dreadful conditions aside of course. This does not rank alongside, for instance, Senna at Donington in 1993, or even with Alonso at Hungaroring in 2006.

But Hamilton’s race showed firstly that he can drive in the wet. As his engineer noted at the end of the race, he has ticked the “driving in the wet” box that he so conspicuously failed to tick earlier this year at the Nürburgring. It also shows just how quickly he is learning. He made no obvious clangers at Nürburgring, but it was overall a pretty scrappy and unimpressive race. Fuji put that to bed.

It was exactly the opposite for Alonso. It is difficult to know exactly what was wrong with Alonso at Fuji. The conditions should have worked in his favour. Driving in the wet is a major strength of his, as last year’s Hungarian GP demonstrated. At Fuji, though, he was all over the place (certainly in comparison to Hamilton). Seemingly, Hamilton got pole with a heavier car as well.

For another reminder of how well Hamilton is doing, you just had to look from the back of Hamilton’s car on lap 45. Behind the safety car, Sebastian Vettel caused one of the most embarrassing crashes of the season. Mark Webber was running second for Red Bull, and he felt like he was in with a chance of winning. Sebastian Vettel was in third for the Red Bull sister car, Toro Rosso. It would be a historic finish for Red Bull, and for Toro Rosso who were on line for their first ever podium, and their first points of the season.

Then Vettel lost his concentration behind the safety car and slammed straight into the back of Webber. Both cars had to retire from the race. Vettel was distraught — crying in the garage upon his sheepish return to the pitlane. How does he explain to the boss what happened?

Webber was noticeably furious, and threw the steering wheel from his car as though he were an Olympic shot put competitor. ITV reported that early on in the race Webber had been sick in his helmet. Lesser men would give up when their stomachs empty themselves. That’s what separates us from Grand Prix racing drivers. The decision to continue was being paid off in the form of second place.

I bet while he was running in second he had forgotten all about the vomit in his helmet. Being slammed in the rear by a driver of his sister team was probably enough to make him sick all over again. Take a sip of water to calm yourself down. Oh no, you were sick into your straw.

Furious Webber stormed back to the pitlane and blasted Vettel in the strongest possible terms. It provided the funniest moment of the race. On live Saturday morning television, in the same slot where Pocoyo is normally shown, he blasted, voice noticeably trembling with rage:

It’s kids, isn’t it. It’s kids with not enough experience, and they just go and FUCK IT ALL UP!

Here it is on YouTube — enjoy it while you can, before FOM remove it.

Vettel has probably lost a lot of his reputation with that moment. Usually it would be forgiven as a rookie mistake, but the problem is that this year there is a rookie who you cannot envisage making that kind of mistake. More evidence of what a good job Hamilton is doing. (Having said that, I can’t think of Kovalainen dropping any similar clangers either.)

Someone else who lost a lot of reputation — as if he had any left to lose — was Ralf Schumacher. During qualifying 1 he was seemingly worried about not making the cut. For whatever reason he felt the need to take an ambitious move alongside a Spyker. Unfortunately, instead of going alongside the Spyker, he just went straight into it and damaged his car so badly that he wouldn’t have been able to go into Q2 anyway. To rub salt into the wound, he qualified for it. Yesterday, Ralf Schumacher was sacked left Toyota.

I suppose this is the thing about wet races. It makes some people look like complete idiots. It makes other people look like superheroes. So many drivers put in amazing performances at Fuji. I have already noted Hamilton, Webber and Vettel (before his boo-boo moment).

But Kimi Räikkönen was probably the most impressive driver on the track. He suffered badly from Ferrari’s strategic (and rule-breaking) blunder to start the race on intermediates while everyone else was on full wets. It was a nonsensical decision in the first place, and after just a few laps behind the safety car both Ferrari drivers had to pit in to change to full wets, relegating them to dead last.

Despite this, and in those crazy conditions as well, Räikkönen and Massa both managed to get themselves into potential podium positions. Räikkönen in particular had a stunning race, with a notable move on the outside of David Coulthard being the highlight. It really is the stuff that champions are made of. I hope Räikkönen’s career won’t finish as a case of “if only” as it has been so far.

Kudos also to Massa who was ahead of Räikkönen which is really inconvenient for Ferrari’s hopes in the Drivers’ Championship. And team orders don’t exist, especially from Ferrari. So it was time for a suspicious “splash n dash” to let Räikkönen ahead of Massa, who dropped straight back to 7^th.

I suppose we shouldn’t be so cynical. It did let us see a truly amazing last-lap ding-dong battle between Massa and Kubica. There was an uncomfortably high amount of the run-off areas being used. I feel that Massa’s wide line through the run-off at the final corner is what gave him the edge over Kubica in the end, but they were both guilty of using the run-off areas. It provided some damn fun racing, but you can’t help feeling that they were both… cheating?

Ah yes cheating. What about that business with starting on intermediates when they were told to go on wets? Ferrari didn’t get the email apparently! Hah! Yeah right. All of the other teams and even the commentators knew the deal, but Ferrari didn’t. Likely story. Of course, FIArrari believed them.

I should also mention Jenson Button. After his torrid season in a shitbox Honda, he qualifying performance was truly encouraging and I was hoping that he could get a good result. Unfortunately he lost his front wing early on and had to get it replaced.

Rather alarmingly, though, he ran sans front wing for a few laps without any major drop-off in performance. An illustration of just how bad that Honda is — it can lose its front wing and you wouldn’t be able to tell from the times being set.

Liuzzi almost scored a point for Torro Rosso. It would have been scant consolation for Vettel’s lost podium, but it would have been something. Yup, it would have been, had he not passed Sutil under a yellow flag! Doh!

So instead, Adrian Sutil scored his first point, and Spyker’s first point as well. Just in time to impress their latest new owner (they must have had four owners in as many years!). In seriousness, Sutil is seriously impressing this season. A drive at a better team for 2009 surely beckons.

History also for Heikki Kovalainen, who took Renault’s first podium of the year, and his first podium of the career. Apparently it is also the first time two Finns have been on the podium, so a good day to remember for Finland.

A shockingly awful day for Japan though. On their home territory, all of the teams with Japanese links did awfully. I have already mentioned Schumacher and Button. Barrichello was 10^th, Trulli finished dead last of the runners, both Williams-Toyotas and both Super Aguris failed to finish. Sakon Yamamoto was 12^th. Who would be a Japanese F1 fan?

This is just a bit of what I have been thinking. I could go on and on and on about that race, but I have to stop somewhere. The championship looks like it’s nearly over, but I can’t wait for the Chinese Grand Prix. Luckily, we only have to wait a few days for it.

Update: As soon as I published this, I spotted this on Sidepodcast. It provides very convincing evidence that Hamilton could have caused the collision between Webber and Vettel. It also backs up Vettel’s post-race comments about how he was being put off by Hamilton. Commentators noted Hamilton’s erratic driving behind the safety car, and it does look a little bit like Hamilton was taking things rather over the line with his excessive start–stop driving.

You can only assume that he was deliberately trying to cause an accident, or rattle his opponents. (As Sidepodcast notes, it can’t have been warming brakes, because that involves abrupt changes in speed, not the gradual halt that Hamilton comes to.) What do you think? Watch quickly, before FOM take it down.

I have to say, well done to the person who took the footage. It’s better than anything the actual TV director took of the incident, and reveals a whole lot more of what was going on in the incident.

Update: The original video has, as predicted, been removed by FOM. For the benefit of the many visitors still reading this post, here is another copy of the video. This will probably get pulled down as well.

Via Telegraph Technology.

I am quite reluctant to write about the week’s off-track events in the world of Formula 1. Originally I wanted things to settle down before I wrote anything. But ever since then, things have steadfastly refused to settle down. A few people come along to kick some dust into the air and the whole issue is flipped on its head again. Hopefully things have at last settled down now.

First things first. The evidence against McLaren was fairly damning. In the original hearing, McLaren’s defence was that Mike Coughlan was a rogue employee and that no other employee had access to any confidential Ferrari information. Furthermore, most of the evidence pointed to Nigel Stepney and Mike Coughlan intending to use the documents at Honda, where they jointly applied for a job, rather than McLaren.

The new evidence demonstrates that there was, to an extent, an intention to use Ferrari information to guide development at McLaren. Pedro de la Rosa and Fernando Alonso also knew about the documents and discussed information from them. And, as the WMSC pointed out (points 3.10, 3.11), it is highly likely that other employees must have known about this.

Otherwise, the implication is that Pedro de la Rosa has the sole say on which weight distributions get tested on the simulator and whether to try out a special type of gas on the tyres. Common sense says that somebody else other than the test driver is involved in these decisions.

However, this also conclusively proves that Ferrari information was not flowing among McLaren employees freely. My guess is that Mike Coughlan probably knew that he would end up in big trouble if enough people found out that he had special access to Ferrari information.

It is notable that Pedro de la Rosa — somebody who Coughlan will have known since his days at Arrows — is at the centre of all the email conversations. He was clearly being used as a kind of middleman between Coughlan and whichever other employees de la Rosa was working with.

Perhaps it was Coughlan’s intention to keep the Ferrari documents to himself all along. It is possible that he accidentally let it slip to his friend Pedro that he was in regular contact with Nigel Stepney. From then on, de la Rosa’s curiosity forced Coughlan to look up the documents and the rest we see in the emails. de la Rosa let his compatriot Alonso in on the secret. This explains why Lewis Hamilton had no incriminating emails.

And it is still possible that no other employees were aware of the Ferrari documents, although de la Rosa was providing helpful suggestions to his colleagues. In this sense, the McLaren team is no more guilty now than it was in July. It was just the actions of one (or two or three) rogue employees in a company which must have several hundred employees.

What the new evidence also reveals is that the Ferrari data was probably not much use to McLaren anyway. The revelations about weight distribution suggest that the Ferrari data was so different to what McLaren was used to that it was deemed useless for their car to the extent that Fernando Alonso doubted the accuracy of the data. It backs up what I said in my previous post on this subject — that it would be like putting together pieces from two different jigsaws.

There remains precious little evidence that McLaren actually did use any of the Ferrari data in the end. It’s a shame that, because of the way this story has been presented by the media, most people seem to think that McLaren were found guilty of “spying” on Ferrari and copying Ferrari parts and therefore having an illegal car.

McLaren were actually found guilty of the catch-all “bringing the sport into disrepute”. This (along with the fact that all of McLaren’s drivers provided the FIA with the relevant emails) explains why the drivers have kept their points while McLaren have lost all of theirs. It is close to the prediction I made in my previous post — that McLaren would be punished heavily while Hamilton (the story of the season, remember) would get away scot-free.

It is cynical of the FIA to do this. But there was not much else they could do. They had got themselves into a situation where they had to punish McLaren, but at the same time they did not want to jeopardise the story of entire season (the emergence of Lewis Hamilton and an exciting 3- or 4-way title battle). It is fair, though, for the drivers to keep their points as they have not been driving an illegal car.

A lot of the problem came down to the fact that the WMSC had to be seen to be punishing McLaren harshly. The media latched onto this story in an unprecedented way, and in many respects it was sensationalised and blown out of proportion. As such, the punishment is suitably sensationalised and overblown.

The $100 million fine was clearly designed to attract headlines, not least because this is nothing like what McLaren will have to pay. Some of the money will come out of the earnings they will lose as a result of being thrown out of this year’s Constructors’ Championship. McLaren won’t even have to pay half of the $100 million.

Another aspect of the coverage that has annoyed me is the way that it has become known as “spygate”. You will notice that I continue to call it by its original name, “Stepneygate”. Why? Because there was no spying going on! Mike Coughlan did not break into Maranello and hide in Jean Todt’s cupboard. He was approached by a Ferrari employee, Nigel Stepney, and from there a relationship was formed.

No bugs. No wiretaps. No covert break-ins. Just one Ferrari employee exchanging information with one McLaren employee. As far as I am concerned, this all began with the wrongdoing of a Ferrari employee, not the McLaren team. It begs the question once again — why were Ferrari not also charged with bringing the sport into disrepute? It was their employee who started this whole sorry episode. A rogue employee, yes — just like Mike Coughlan.

In fact, if anyone has been the victim of spying, it is Nigel Stepney. Earlier this year he claimed that he feared for his life after finding that he had been bugged. He says he was also involved in “Mafia-like” high-speed car chases and subsequently fled Italy.

This is where the whole tale becomes darker. Clive at Formula 1 Insight says that certain articles on some websites have mysteriously disappeared. I am certain of this as well, because I can not find any reference to Stepney’s car chase claims on the reputable F1 websites that I read, although I am certain that I must have read of them there.

This leads us nicely onto conspiracy theories. The FIA’s institutional pro-Ferrari bias is well known and barely contested by anyone except the most blindly ardent Ferrari fans. For instance, the World Motor Sport Council — the body that found against McLaren on Thursday — has more representatives from Ferrari than any other team. The governing body’s constant attempts to rig the championship in Ferrari’s favour has done far more to place the sport into disrepute than anything Ron Dennis or McLaren have done.

A lot of people are asking why McLaren have been so harshly punished. One of the things that I am reading time and time again is that this sort of thing is apparently fairly commonplace in Formula 1 (although perhaps not to the same extent). I mentioned Peter Windsor’s comments on this blog before (near the bottom of the post).

Many are also drawing parallels with the incident that involved Toyota a few years ago. The FIA stayed well away from that — the whole matter was kept to the Italian courts.

So, why have McLaren been singled out in this way? The FIA’s pro-Ferrari bias can’t explain it all. The Toyota case also involved Ferrari blueprints. Obviously, the way the media latched onto the story explains part of it. But the media latched onto it for a reason. Ferrari pushed this for all it was worth and asked the FIA to get involved (unlike the Toyota case). But was there something else at play?

Many claim that FIA president Max Mosley has a personal vendetta against Ron Dennis. Mosley didn’t do much to change this perception with his comments at Spa yesterday morning (awkward photo opportunity or not).

It seems to me that Max Mosley’s comment that the large fine was designed partly to “bring… his [Ron Dennis's] budget down to the level of some of the other top teams in the paddock” backs up this notion that Mosley is anti-Dennis and pro-Ferrari. It sounds like a calculated plan to damage McLaren and help its rival teams.

Paul Stoddart certainly put in more than his two cents in a must-read interview with Pitpass. Stoddart was an old nemesis of Max Mosley, but he was hardly best pals with Ron Dennis either. It is notable therefore that Paul Stoddart should come out so strongly in Ron Dennis’s favour.

As an aside, note Stoddart’s claim that Max Mosley was the person who prevented there being a proper race at Indianapolis in 2005. He and Jean Todt were the only people who were not willing to compromise for the sake of the sport. Even Bernie Ecclestone was so incensed at Mosley’s stubbornness that he threw his phone at him. This is a real (albeit thoroughly unsurprising) insight into Max Mosley’s character.

Speaking of Max Mosley, Ron Dennis and character, another thing I have read about time and time again is the integrity of Ron Dennis. It is difficult to imagine Ron Dennis cheating or knowingly allowing cheating to go on in his team. He is clearly a proud individual — not just proud of himself, but proud of McLaren as well.

His company has a strict policy whereby the drivers are treated equally. This had already got the team into trouble at least twice this year (at Monaco and Hungary). Still, Ron Dennis refused to deviate from the policy.

Well, seemingly it is the equality stance that has landed McLaren in the deep doo-doo that it has found itself in. Apparently Fernando Alonso confronted Ron Dennis on the morning of the Hungarian Grand Prix. He told Ron Dennis about the incriminating emails and threatened to hand them over to the FIA unless he was made number one driver.

It is interesting that Ron Dennis preferred to hand over the information himself rather than capitulating to the powerful Alonso’s demands. He risked the reputation of his team to preserve the integrity of his team. Very, very admirable. Allegedly, Alonso and Dennis have not spoken since the incident.

It has to be said, this casts Alonso in a very bad light. Not only did he sit on incriminating information, but he also effectively blackmailed his boss in an attempt to get preferential treatment. I bemoaned Lewis Hamilton’s arrogance a few weeks ago, but Fernando Alonso is obviously not squeaky clean either.

I am just glad that there is a race tomorrow so that hopefully this whole sorry affair can be put to rest at last. For some light relief, check out this amusing animated version of the Stepneygate saga (via Ed Gorman). The captions are all in Spanish (or something), but I can still understand it all perfectly!