This is the latest in my continuing series of posts reviewing the 2007 Formula 1 season. You can check out the other posts in the nifty new table of contents on the right (thanks to the In-Series WP plugin). This post will look at my top five constructors of the season.

5 — Ferrari

As always, Ferrari proved themselves to be among the very best on the track. They took a bit of a risk with their long wheelbase which clearly disadvantaged them at several circuits — most notably Monaco, Hungaroring and Monza. Maybe there should be a rethink on that front, but they won the Constructors’ Championship which shows something.

There were some really uncharacteristic mistakes in the pit lane as well. You could tell they were missing Ross Brawn. When they started the Japanese Grand Prix on intermediates instead of full wet tyres, it was not only going against an order from Charlie Whiting, but it was also completely barking mad. Even behind the safety car the Ferraris were struggling to keep it on the island (if you could call a circuit that wet an island) and could have completely ruined their race.

Then there was that time in Hungary when they sent Felipe Massa out to qualify without any fuel in his car. I don’t know how they managed that. Quite shocking for what is supposed to be the best outfit in the pit lane.

However, the big story of Ferrari’s year was — surprise, surprise — not on the track. Yet again Ferrari’s distasteful actions off the track left a sour taste in the mouth. When a rogue employee of theirs, Nigel Stepney, started to cause them bother, Ferrari managed to leverage it so that it was all somehow Ron Dennis’s fault.

Knowing full well that the FIA would take their side, Ferrari got McLaren thrown out of the Constructors Championship. This was even though it was a Ferrari employee who instigated the entire sorry episode.

Throughout the season Luca di Montezemolo and Jean Todt (the personification of wee man syndrome) made a series of ridiculous remarks that made Ferrari come across as desperate and underhand. Di Montezemolo’s constant claims that McLaren cars had “a lot of Ferrari” in them were especially childish because there has never been a shred of evidence that this was the case.

Ferrari even contradicted themselves with their nonsensical claims. It wasn’t a surprise when they said that they would be happy to win the title in court because this is the normal way for Ferrari to go about things.

Of course, when the boot is on the other foot it’s all a different story and winning the title in court is “grubby manoeuvring”. If this is true (which it is), then Ferrari is a pig that loves to swim in its own shit.

Putting aside the honking court cases, Ferrari also appear to be embroiled in a period of nasty internal politics. The management restructuring has obviously disillusioned a lot of people. It is widely seen as one of the reasons that led Nigel Stepney to say “psst!” to Mike Coughlan. It has also led to the permanent departure of Ross Brawn. Even Jean Todt seems quite indifferent these days. What a mess.

And why have they extended Felipe Massa’s contract until 2010? Especially with the traction control ban coming into force, this has ‘disaster’ written all over it (not to mention ‘nepotism’).

4 — Red Bull–Renault

2007 must have been disappointing for the Red Bull team and they will be looking to treat it as a transition year. The Adrian Newey-designed chassis was reasonably quick, but one may have expected more to come from such a highly-regarded designer.

More worrying will be the fact that the reliability of the Red Bull car was so awful. Given the reliability problems McLaren suffered when Adrian Newey was working for them, this is beginning to look a bit like Newey’s Achilles’ heel.

However, I doubt the problems with the seamless shift gearbox — Red Bull’s biggest problem — can be blamed on Newey’s tight, uncompromising chassis designs, as some do. Whatever, there were an unacceptable number of mechanical failures this year for Red Bull. In this era of super-reliability, it’s not enough. Red Bull went away from an astonishing 11 races pointless.

Overall, 2007 was more successful than 2006, but they must have been expecting better results by now. Mark Webber in particular has been let down time and again by the car’s poor reliability. But they also lack the speed to regularly compete with the front runners.

They have hired ex-Honda designer Geoff Willis which bodes well for the future. If they had a bit more speed, Red Bull’s only weakness would be reliability. If this is ironed out, it surely won’t be long before they win a race.

3 — McLaren–Mercedes

I am normally quite sympathetic to McLaren (admittedly this is mostly because I can’t stand Ferrari, but hey). But it was difficult to defend some of the things that happened in the McLaren team this season.

It is difficult to know where to begin, as so many things went wrong for McLaren this year. So I’ll start with the good points.

First of all, they built the best car. And no, Mr. di Montezemolo, it was not because of Ferrari documents. In fact, I struggle to remember a time when two front-running teams had such obviously divergent designs to the point where McLaren could have a 1.5s advantage on one circuit and a 1.5s deficit on the next.

The height of their season — (just) before any hint of internal strife became apparent — came at Monaco. It was such a dominant performance from McLaren. I was utterly in awe. They lapped everyone bar Felipe Massa who was 69s behind. It was probably the most dominant outing for a team since Australia 1998.

Before I go onto post-Monaco shenanigans, there is one other thing that went well for McLaren. They had the best driver line-up imaginable. This caused its own problems which we all now know about, but you have to say it. Fernando Alonso’s skill — as a double World Champion and the most successful rival of Michael Schumacher ever — is not in doubt.

What was in doubt was Lewis Hamilton. We knew he had pace from GP2, but no-one could have expected him to achieve what he did. He still has a few rough edges, but you can’t expect anything else. Hamilton was astonishingly quick. So full credit to McLaren for investing in that talent for all those years.

Now the downsides. And since I’ve just alluded to it, I might as well dive straight into the trouble between Alonso and Hamilton. McLaren’s equality stance has always been admirable. But in this post-Schumacher era it is probably now, sadly, a relic. Michael Schumacher has set the bar on this so when a driver has a Schumacher-sized ego he will demand Schumacher-style treatment. After all, seven World Championships don’t lie.

Ron Dennis’s complete inability to manage the tensions that Alonso was feeling has probably delivered the final nail in the coffin of the ‘equality’ policy in every F1 team’s book. It would have been so much easier if Lewis Hamilton began the season as a number 2 to Fernando Alonso. Then, without a shadow of a doubt, we would be sitting here talking about three times World Champion Alonso and sure-fire champion of tomorrow Lewis Hamilton. Instead, we are sitting here today talking about a McLaren team reeling from the year’s events, finding itself having to sack the best driver on the grid, and Ron Dennis licking his wounds.

Of course, Alonso’s behaviour was not the only reason why McLaren find themselves on the back foot. There is the small matter of Stepneygate (I still refuse to call it “spygate” because no spying was involved).

Sure, the whole thing was Max Mosley making an example of Ron Dennis. But ultimately, there is no getting away from the fact that a McLaren employee was caught red-handed with Ferrari documents. Either you believe that Ron Dennis knew about it all along, in which case he is a liar, or Ron Dennis is telling the truth and it exposes flaws in the management of the team.

On top of all that, the season was just generally a PR disaster for McLaren. You could see this in just about everything that happened to them this year. It started off with a row that somehow built up out of nothing after the Monaco Grand Prix. McLaren were unable to explain Lewis Hamilton’s comments about not being allowed to pass Fernando Alonso, and a row in the press about team orders duly ensued.

Stepneygate and the Alonso problem were also both horrifically badly handled. Even after the season was over they made a complete hash of appealing the Brazilian Grand Prix result. McLaren tied themselves in knots on all of these issues. For all of Ron Dennis’s supposed honesty and integrity, I was often left with the impression that he was not telling the whole truth at points during this season. I have been disillusioned by McLaren this year.

This PR problem is a downside of having Lewis Hamilton in their team. Being a Brit, and the British press being what it is, the magnifying glass is on McLaren like never before. This is going to happen on a regular basis from now on. It’s no wonder they’ve hired Matt Bishop to try and keep them on the right track PR-wise from now on.

What a horrible irony though. At last, after too many years to bear thinking about, McLaren had produced a car capable of winning the World Championship. But their season fell apart in every single other respect.

2 — Williams–Toyota

Believe me. I never thought I would rank Williams so highly. I am not usually a fan of Williams, and I don’t really understand the appeal. But now, with this customer car issue, I think I finally get it.

Williams is a proudly independent grand prix team. It is clinging onto the traditional way of doing things — entering Formula 1 out of a love for motor racing, and not as a platform to advertise your business. All of the other teams are either heavily tied to manufacturers or outright owned by manufacturers, soft drinks companies or Vijay Mallya and Michel Mol (who, in fairness, both at least seem to have a real interest in the sport).

It is a tough environment for a team like Williams nowadays. It is difficult to envisage a team like Williams achieving domination in the way they did in the mid-1990s.

Their subsequent history has been patchy at best. A brief flirtation with BMW ended in tears. Williams tumbled down the timing sheets and — just to rub salt into the wound — BMW climbed up them. After coming close to winning the Championship in 2003, they produced a mediocre car in 2004, a dog in 2005 and a shitbox in 2006. It looked like Williams had completely lost the knack of winning or even regularly scoring points.

This year saw Williams in the ascendancy for a change and I would say they look strong for the future. There are also signs that Williams are learning from old mistakes.

Williams’s usual approach to drivers is to unceremoniously dump them. But they obviously see something completely different in Nico Rosberg, whom they seem determined to hang on to. It was perhaps a mistake to give Alexander Wurz that race drive, as he was a little bit rusty (although delivered in Canada with an astonishing drive to the podium from plum last). There is a big question mark over their decision to hire Kazuki Nakajima… but that’s for next year’s list.

Second place might seem a bit high. In terms of out-and-out on-the-track performance, Williams shouldn’t be this high. But given the woes that have faced McLaren and Ferrari, Renault’s fall from grace, Red Bull’s chronic unreliability and the mediocrity of the lower-down teams, Williams is just about the only team that can look on the 2007 season and be proud of what it has achieved. But there is one team that can perhaps feel prouder…

1 — BMW-Sauber

I think that what BMW achieved this year was astonishing. When BMW bought the Sauber team, they were hoping to win races within three years. And it looks like they might just manage that.

Under the expert leadership of Super Dr. Mario Theissen (pictured), BMW are going from strength to strength. They might have only had the third-best car this year, but they also comprehensively outperformed last year’s World Champions. With the turmoil that both Ferrari and McLaren have been facing, who’s to say BMW won’t improve further next season?

BMW are also helped by the fact that their championship position was tied up easily. Second place was theirs, so they concentrated on their 2008 car.

I say second place, but BMW still maintain that they were actually third. This is true, because McLaren were only thrown out of the championship on rather dubious grounds. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the fact that BMW are not going around beating their chest about this dubious second place speaks volumes about their grounded attitude. They had the third-best car and they know it.

The car was great. Not the fastest, but comfortably the ‘best of the rest’. The other teams know it, because BMW personnel have been lured away. I doubt this will deter BMW though. Mario Theissen seems to know exactly what he’s doing.

Theissen also has a good eye for great drivers as well. Robert Kubica, Sebastian Vettel and Timo Glock have all been given a helping hand by BMW in the past couple of years, so it’s well worth looking at whatever drivers BMW brings on board as test drivers.

All-in-all, I was thoroughly impressed with BMW. Notice to Toyota: this is how a manufacturer should run a Formula 1 team. The team has been pulled out of the terminal mediocrity of the Sauber days and looks set to begin winning races any time now. I’ll be celebrating when they do.

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!

You know, I didn’t think the FIA or the World Motor Sport Council had it in them, but they’ve managed it — they have actually made the right decision. Moreover, they have made a decision that has angered Ferrari! Blow me down!

While the media has been tempted to spin this as motorsport’s governing body letting McLaren off the hook, this misses an important point. There isn’t much evidence that McLaren have done anything wrong. The saga remains an issue concerning two rogue employees — Mike Coughlan of McLaren and Nigel Stepney of Ferrari.

There is no evidence that McLaren have benefited at all from the Ferrari documents. Indeed, there is not even evidence that the documents were ever in the possession of any McLaren employee except for Mike Coughlan. And while, as chief designer of McLaren, he was a pretty important figure, he can not have had the time to do much with the documents anyway.

Somebody yesterday said to me that it was a bit fishy that McLaren have come up with a fast car this year. But Mike Coughlan came into possession of the documents in late March — long after this year’s McLaren was designed; even after it first raced. And it is not as if it is unusual for McLaren to design a fast car. Indeed, it has been overdue, as they have experienced an unprecedented drought of success in recent years.

You only need to take a glance at the Ferrari and the McLaren to appreciate that they are not similar cars. The joke normally goes that if you gave all of the F1 cars the same paint job you would be unable to tell them apart. But the chassis of the Ferrari and the McLaren are very noticeably different to each other. Seemingly, nothing on the inside of the cars has rung alarm bells either.

There is the possibility that some Ferrari information was used in the development of the car as the season has gone on. But McLaren’s incredibly open offer to hand its car over to the FIA for inspection shows just how confident Ron Dennis was that his team had not broken the rules. The fact that the FIA have seemingly found no evidence of copied Ferrari parts vindicates this. Ron Dennis is a meticulous and honest man, and McLaren’s record is about as unblemished as they come.

Furthermore, a careful reading of the saga as it has drawn out has revealed that McLaren was never going to be the team where the Ferrari documents would have come in handy anyway. The most likely scenario is that Stepney approached Coughlan with a view to creating a “dream team” of engineers who would approach Honda.

Stepney in particular, and presumably Coughlan as well, were disillusioned with their employers for whatever reason. In Honda they would have seen the perfect opportunity: a team with a big budget and in desperate need to extra engineering and technical expertise.

They were looking for a boost in pay and status, and saw Honda as their best option. The Ferrari documents merely formed part of their arsenal. Honda are in the clear though, as they did not hire Stepney or Coughlan.

And Stepney’s involvement is important. GrandPrix.com has suggested that McLaren may have argued in court that if McLaren are to receive a penalty because of Mike Coughlan’s actions, then Ferrari ought to receive a similar penalty for Nigel Stepney’s actions. Given the lack of evidence of McLaren actually benefiting from the documents, this seems like a sound argument to me.

Given all of this information, it would have been pretty difficult for the WMSC to justify any draconian punishment for McLaren. Yes, Ferrari are livid. But this is typical of Ferrari. It is tough to think of a year in the past decade or so where Ferrari have not resorted to the rulebooks and the courts in an attempt to win the championship.

I will pluck just a few examples from the top of my head. The illegal bargeboards at Sepang in 1999: cleared by FIArrari. The sudden appeal against Michelin tyres towards the end of 2003, despite the fact that they had been used for almost two years: upheld by FIArrari. Last year’s claim at Monza that during qualifying Massa was being “impeded” by a Renault that was half a kilometre further up the track: supported by FIArrari.

Usually Ferrari’s whining succeeds because the FIA are Ferrari lackeys. This is why Jean Todt’s claim that Ferrari would have been punished if they were in the same situation is so laughable.

This latest saga is yet another example of Ferrari trying to win the championship through the many grey areas of the rulebook rather than the grey surface of the race track. What a breath of fresh air for the FIA to go against Ferrari’s wishes. It further demonstrates how little evidence there must have been of McLaren wrongdoing.

It is also worth remembering that McLaren have not gone completely unpunished. The FIA will be keeping an eye on them for the next two years to check for an evidence of the Ferrari information being used by McLaren. If McLaren step out of line, they face immediate exclusion from the championship. This is surely a fair verdict. As Ron Dennis said yesterday, “the punishment fits the crime.”

Keith Collantine has come to a similar conclusion to me, and makes a number of interesting points.

Ferrari claimed that the verdict creates a damaging precedent. They’re wrong. Imagine if McLaren had been docked points, even banned from the championship, simply because Coughlan was found to have Ferrari documents in his possession, without having used them.

We would then have a scenario where any disgruntled employee could hold their team to ransom by claiming they possessed similar confidential documents about another team.

In all legal systems, there has to be a dividing line between the companies’ responsibility and the individual’s.

Now for a bit of tin foil hat stuff. Where has this all come from? Many observers have noted how difficult they found it to believe that such well-regarded figures as Nigel Stepney and Mike Coughlan would get involved in this kind of behaviour. Whatever their motives, there is little doubt that it has not paid off, as their reputations are in tatters and they both face lengthy bans from motorsport.

There is, indeed, a real whiff of fish around this entire saga. Sidepodcast outlined a number of the aspects that just didn’t add up. A good point is made about the whistleblower who contacted Ferrari, said to be a worker at a Woking photocopying shop:

here’s a challenge. pretend you’re the copier guy, try and call the Italian team, see how many hoops you have to jump through to get in touch with them. then see if they even respond, let alone believe what you’re claiming.

i’m damn sure if it were me the first call i’d make would be to the police…or failing that, the Daily Mirror. this guy could be worth a fortune now!

final point. where is this mysterious tipster and why isn’t he talking? what a great story he would have. the tabloids would love it, especially on the weekend of the British GP. we’re not getting half the story here.

Here is something else that has got me scratching my head. It is this month’s ‘Friction Circle’ column in F1 Racing, written by Peter Windsor. He is a bit of an FIA / Ferrari lackey, but he is also a wise man whose word and experience are surely to be trusted. Here is what he said:

…espionage is alive and well in F1 and has been for the past couple of decades. I’m not talking about ‘cloned’ cars such as the Benetton–Ligier or the current Newey or Honda chassis. I’m talking deliberate industrial espionage — and I speak from the experience of having worked in F1 teams for a total of eight years during that period. I saw it with my own eyes — the evidence of senior employees sending drawings to destinations that could only be described as arch-rivals. It was blatant, obvious, but the F1 world just seemed to take it for granted.

…

A big thank you, then, to Ferrari, McLaren and Honda — and especially to the FIA — for giving this most recent matter the publicity and sincerity it deserves.

Now this is surprising to me, because almost every other experienced observer that I have read has written about how unbelievable they found the entire situation. Yes, they say, spying is normal. Taking photographs of rival cars is standard practice. But industrial espionage on this scale? “I’m shocked, just shocked!”

So is Peter Windsor right? Is industrial espionage the norm in F1? If it is, why has nobody said anything about it before? Why hasn’t Peter Windsor himself ever said anything about it?

Assuming Peter Windsor is right, this just adds on another question to the never-ending list. Why have Stepney and Coughlan been singled out, while similar behaviour has been “taken for granted” in the past?

Formula 1 is waving goodbye to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. Or it would be, if it was still there to do so. We’ve already had our last trip there without even knowing about it. It’s like dumping someone by text message.

We tried our best, but in the end it just wouldn’t work out.

Formula 1’s relationship with Indianapolis is about as rocky as it gets — and that really is saying something in F1. In a way, it is amazing to think that, had Indianapolis been a venue next year, it would have been its tenth Formula 1 race. When people look back on the period, some might wonder if it was just a silly experiment that was doomed from the start.

On paper, it was a fantastic idea. One of the world’s most prestigious racing circuits (indeed, the self-styled “Racing Capital of the World”) plays host to the world’s greatest motor racing series.

Unfortunately, there was an elephant in the room. In fact, there wasn’t just one elephant in the room. There were several.

First of all, despite all of its chest-beating, and the reverential treatment which American motor racing fans give it, Indianapolis Motor Speedway is not a great circuit. I was in the room with my father when I heard the news about Indy being dropped. The radio reporter was waxing lyrical about how special the circuit is. My dad instantly spluttered, “No it’s not! It’s an oval!”

So a plan had to be hatched in order to stop Formula 1’s broadly European fan base from being sent into a coma by the prospect of F1 races happening on the oval. They also had to accommodate the fact that F1 drivers are used to racing through corners and, moreover, corners that go both left and right. So an actual circuit that had to be designed by means other than drawing around a protractor was built on the inside of the oval.

The circuit has broadly met with disapproval from those who dislike its ’stop-start’ nature and “Mickey Mouse” corners. In sum, it was a botch job. You could never escape the fact that it was really an almost unwanted appendage to the oval.

This all stems from the fact that American motor racing culture is so different to European motor racing culture. So while Indianapolis is a Mecca for American petrolheads, Europeans are much more likely to worship the Nürburgring Nordschleife.

I have written about this in the past. In a nutshell, while we Europeans don’t “get” oval racing, Nascar and the like, Americans don’t “get” Formula 1.

It is quite appropriate that I should write about this in the week that David Beckham has moved LA Galaxy. At the moment, commentators are predicting that Americans will be attracted by the glamour, but they probably won’t understand why he is a good footballer. It is said that Americans will be expecting Beckham to score five or six goals a match, without even realising that he isn’t a forward.

Exactly the same is true of F1. I sense that Americans have a sneaking suspicion that Formula 1 is great. But they just don’t understand why it’s great. They expect lots of overtaking! They expect big crashes! But Formula 1 does not supply this enough, instead emphasising aspects like great driving, technical excellence and, er, turning right.

I remember reading an amusing comparison a few years ago. I think it was made by David Richards (correct me if I’m wrong). He said that Nascar is like a cheeseburger, while Formula 1 is like caviare. That sounds like a snobby thing to say, but it has a ring of truth to it.

In this sense, selling F1 to Americans is a little bit like flogging a dead horse.

The next problem was television. In one sense, the US Grand Prix was a dream for Formula 1, because it took place during prime time for Europe. It was a double-edged sword though (in the UK at least) as it meant that ITV had better things to do in prime time than watching cars going round and round on an oval a Mickey Mouse track. So the programme was shortened, with little post-race analysis.

Moreover, viewers had to endure for what felt like half the race a ticker that helpfully informed us that “Coronation Street follows the race”. This was despite the fact that the race was not eating into Coronation Street’s scheduled slot, which was exactly the same slot that it occupies every other Sunday.

Don’t forget that the race was coming from America, which meant that for a couple of years viewers had to endure pictures broadcast in the blurrier, fuzzier NTSC standard rather than the PAL standard which Europeans are used to. Not very good, particularly when we are trying to watch fast-moving cars. A bit more blur is the last thing we need.

The situation was so bad that Bernie Ecclestone, for the only time ever, allowed terrestrial broadcasters to transmit the superior F1 Digital + pictures (shot using FOM’s own equipment) in 2002. Following the closure of F1 Digital + at the end of that season, FOM has thankfully remained as the “host broadcaster” of the US Grand Prix in every subsequent year.

As the icing on the cake, it looked quite bad on the television because there were so many empty seats despite the fact that the US Grand Prix is one of the most highly attended of the year. But whenever the camera had a surplus grandstand situated on a part of the oval that is not used by F1 in the background of the shot, it looked pretty bad.

Then there is a matter of what actually happened on the race track. It is highly unfortunate that some of Formula 1’s very darkest moments have happened at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. Canspice puts it succinctly: Formula 1 has consistently shat on Indianapolis.

First of all, there was the manufactured dead heat controversy of 2002. Michael Schumacher slowed down before the finishing line in what was perceived to be a return of the favour that Rubens Barrichello gave him at the Austrian Grand Prix of earlier that year.

What Schumacher forgot while he was cocooned in his cockpit and helmet was that two wrongs do not make a right. And while Barrichello was stripped of his deserved victory in Austria, the American fans were denied the right to see the rightful victor crossing the finish line first. In short, the whole race was pointless.

Amid a cacophony of boos and jeers, Michael Schumacher made up a lame excuse. He was bored of all that winning malarkey and had taken every record in the book. In search for a new challenge, he wanted to manufacture the closest finish to a race ever.

Nice try, Schumi. I know the stereotype is that Americans are not quite as intelligent as some on this side of the pond. But they are not, in fact, stupid. American race fans were taken for mugs that day.

But that was nothing compared to what was to come in 2005. Due in part to the unusual banked Turn 13 (unlucky for everyone in F1 — especially Ralf Schumacher), Michelin tyres were failing. And Turn 13 is one place were you do not want to be driving an unsafe racing car. It was yet another example of why the circuit was just not suitable for Formula 1.

But it was too late to do anything about the layout of the circuit now. At least, it was if your name is Jean Todt or Max Mosley — whose stance on making last-minute alterations to a circuit had completely changed since Barcelona 1994.

There was plenty of buck-passing, finger pointing and blame gaming. Everyone had their opinion as to who was at fault (you can see what I thought at the time by browsing through the archives of this blog). The problem was that all of the extended arms pointing fingers tangled up to make a massive web that the whole of F1 got stuck in.

As such, only six cars took to the grid and American fans were deprived of a proper race. It was hilarious in a sense — partly because it was a farce, and partly because it showed that even with only six cars on the entire track, Michael Schumacher still managed to crash into his team mate. But beyond that, it was more offensive than doing a poo on the dinner table.

Since then, F1 has been on its best behaviour — particularly in America. Almost. Because, despite all of the crap that Formula 1 has flung at Indianapolis, IMS boss Tony George seemed fairly keen to keep the race.

More keen than Bernie Ecclestone was at least. Over the past couple of years, Ecclestone has been lobbing several insults at America, along the lines that Formula 1 doesn’t need America (probably true, as it survived without for most of the 1990s, and never had the full attention of America before and after then either) and that F1 gets more viewers in Malta than in America (demonstrably false).

It is as though, having explosively crapped on the dinner table, Bernie Ecclestone wanted to do a little wee on the carpet just to top it off. Yet, Tony George wanted F1 to keep on visiting Indianapolis. Is he a masochist?

Not really. Because, despite all of the above (and there is a lot of it, as you can see!), Formula 1 had the potential to work at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway — particularly in recent years.

In fairness to the track, it is not actually all that bad. It had grown on me, particularly this year. This year’s race had some interesting overtaking battles on the infield, and this was improved by the tight “left–right–left” switchbacks. These corners do not look attractive and are apparently not fun to drive.

But they ensured that overtaking manoeuvres were prolonged. It was no longer a matter of sticking your car on the inside and breaking later — because your opponent has the inside line to the next corner.

Even though Americans just don’t “get” F1, it is still massively important to them. There were even hints last year that the state could subsidise the Grand Prix!

Also, the businesses of Indianapolis also love the Grand Prix. In fact, it is often their biggest weekend of the year. Amazing when you consider that it is the home of the Indianapolis 500, but there you go. Seemingly, F1 fans are big spenders. But that’s what happens when you’re used to caviare.

I’m a bit late with this one, so I’ll try to keep it brief! I enjoyed the Canadian Grand Prix. There always seemed to be something ready to happen just around the corner. Marbling is common in motor racing, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen it causing such trouble for the drivers, with David Coulthard describing the conditions as the worst dry weather conditions he had ever been in.

Some humour was provided before the race began with a conversation between Scott Speed and his engineer. You can see the pleasent Speed in action on the right there. Speed is known for having a bit of an “attitude problem”, although apart from the infamous moment where he swore at David Coulthard in the stewards’ room the viewers have never seen much of this. Well we got a good old dose of it yesterday.

Speed: Is my engine nice and cool?
Engineer: Yes, your engine is cool.
Speed: Well good, because when I finish the race and get back to the pits and look at the data [voice building up to a cresendo] and Liuzzi’s engine is five degrees cooler than mine, somebody’s head is gonna roll!

Toro Rosso boss Gerhard Berger says he likes racing drivers to have this sort of attitude. Martin Brundle pointed out that there’s not really a lot that anybody can do about the engine temperature. Speed is by no means certain to retain his drive next year, but I hope he says around just for the pure comedy value.

It didn’t take long for the second blooper to emerge. How many Formula 1 starts has Giancarlo Fisichella made? 170. Surely he has the patience to wait for the lights to go out? In the end he compromised his start and had to take a drive-through penalty. Fisichella is bloody lucky he’s driving for Renault. Jean Todt was less than kind about him today.

Nico Rosberg got himself into a few scrapes over the weekend. He managed to hold up his team mate in qualifying as well as Rubens Barrichello, before going on to set a fast but scrappy lap. It sure looks great if you’re scraping along the wall, but anything more than that and you’ll find yourself slammed into said wall. I would say Rosberg was as lucky as he was fast. He didn’t endear himself to anybody with his optimistic battle with Montoya on lap 2. Rosberg is still a rookie, but in my eyes this is a world away from the Rosberg that set Bahrain alight.

Kimi Räikkönen doesn’t quite seem to be all there. I really think he could have won the race. Okay, the problems in the pitstops — with clutch and engine issues — were mostly to blame for Kimi’s downfall. But at one point in the first stint he was all over Alonso, and Martin Brundle was certain that Räikkönen would take the lead on the circuit. In the end it never happened. Whether that was the car or Kimi, I don’t know. But I think we all understand why he is going to be driving for either Ferrari or Renault next year. Two great qualifying performances in a row remind us that there is another young gun in Formula 1 who hasn’t had the opportunity that Alonso was handed on a silver plate.

Honda had another shocker. At the start of the season they almost looked in contention for race wins. Now they can count themselves lucky if they score a point. Where did it all go so wrong?

Perhaps the stupidest thing that happened yesterday was Ralf Schumacher carrying on and on with a car that was clearly sick. He was never going to score a point, and his only purpose yesterday was to act as a mobile chicane. On a narrow, twisty circuit like Montreal, and with the additional marble problems, that was surely too dangerous. On one of Ralf Schumacher’s first slow laps I saw a marshall waving a white flag. That means that the marshall felt that the car was going dangrously slowly.

Surely he was going to tour to the pits and retire? Nope. He would go on to be dangerously slow until his 58^th lap. Why Toyota didn’t call him in I don’t understand. And why the stewards didn’t call him in I don’t understand. Is this not the sort of thing that the black flag with an orange circle was invented for? Ridiculous all round.

Ralf Schumacher caused Jacques Villeneuve to go straight ahead into the wall after he got on to the marbles. This brought out the safety car towards the end of the race, ensuring that the cars were bunched together towards the end of the race — plenty of opportunity for last-minute overtaking, especially with drivers getting caught out on the marbles at the hairpin.

Räikkönen lost second place to Michael Schumacher with just two laps to go, finally bringing to an end a weekend which just an hour or so ago had looked so promising. But Jenson Button must have felt even worse after being passed by David Coulthard down the straight with just a few laps to go. Coulthard had looked snookered. A torrid qualifying session followed by an engine change meant that he started from the very back of the grid. That is possibly the hardest he’s ever worked for a single point. The heroic drive is a reminder that there is still life in old greybeard.