In my view the whole thing was a bluff, intended to soften the blow of Schumacher’s withdrawal following all the hype. By immediately positing the idea of running Schumacher in a third car in the future, they kept the prospects of a Schumacher return alive in the minds of Schumacher fans and the excitable media, while firmly bolting the door shut in reality.

After all, if Ferrari think Schumacher is good enough to race full time again, they already have two cars they can put him in if they want to. But they think that they can find two better drivers anyway — otherwise why ask for a third car?

Normally, the prospect of three car teams is brought up only as a way of keeping the size of the grid high even when there are fewer teams. Presumably this is the plan B in case the grid ever reaches below that magic number, whether it is 16, 18, 20 or whatever.

But supposedly the prospective 2010 field is larger than the field has been for over a decade. 24 cars are currently entered, with two slots ready to be filled (BMW Sauber’s old slots). And there is supposed to be a “reserve list” of teams ready to take up any vacant spaces that emerge. If ever there was a time when third cars are not required, it’s now.

Moreover, three car teams are best avoided for a host of reasons, as outlined by Keith. Imagine, for instance, if Ferrari had three cars in the early part of this decade. The scope for clunky team orders and foul play would have been huge. I am picturing a three car “manufactured dead heat” right now. Shudder.

But that’s okay because I don’t think Ferrari were being very serious when they brought up the idea. The alternative is that Ferrari suspect that the three or four new teams (and, who knows, maybe a couple of others?) will not be able to turn up for the first round of the next season. That doesn’t say much for the FIA’s 2010 entry process, but I guess you can expect Ferrari to be sceptical of it!

But in the case where there are too few teams, people would be talking about three car teams anyway, because it is the obvious plan B. While a plan B isn’t required, though, I wouldn’t be surprise if the prospect of three car teams is not brought up by Ferrari again. The idea can fade away into the background, people will slowly forget about it, and everyone who got worked up about the Schumacher comeback will have been let down slightly more gently than they might otherwise have been.

Take, for instance, this press release which criticises Fota representatives for not being “prepared to discuss regulation at all”. However, in the following paragraph, the FIA concedes that Fota did bring proposals to the table — just that they weren’t to the FIA’s liking.

the FOTA financial proposals were discussed but it became clear that these would not be capable of limiting the expenditure of a team which had the resources to outspend its competitors.

In other words, because Fota do not want a budget cap (and that surely cannot be news to Max), the FIA are not prepared to countenance any of Fota’s suggestions. That does not seem to me to be Fota who are being inflexible. It is the FIA slamming the door shut on anything that is not a budget cap.

The following day, the FIA released this diatribe which was supposed to outline why Fota were such bad, bad people. But once again it demonstrates the arrogance of the FIA, who appear to be in cloud cuckoo land over what makes the sport attractive to fans:

The FIA and FOM have together spent decades building the FIA Formula One World Championship into the most watched motor sport competition in history.

Axis of Oversteer’s post is bang on:

This statement, which essentially blames di Montezemolo for the whole current mess, is set on the premise that the whole of Formula1′s success is based, in it’s entirety, on the FIA’s work. Apparently the reason people watch sports is not for the stars or the teams, it’s because of the rules. Brilliant!

The FIA goes on to describe Fota as being an organisation “made up of participants who come and go as it suits them”. That seems like quite an odd way to describe an organisation with the stature of Ferrari which is the only participant in any shape to have been involved in Formula 1 from the very start.

The FIA, on the other hand, always delegated the regulation of Formula 1 to Fisa, an organisation which was merged into the FIA by Max Mosley only in 1993. Mosley then set upon moulding it into his dictatorship. Foca (the precursor to FOM) only gained commercial rights to the sport in 1981. Interesting to note that Max and Bernie managed to find their way to positions of power in the governance of the sport following a war in which they both acted as representatives of the teams arguing against the governing body.

The Fisa-Foca war was a complex matter. But I think it’s fair to say that “to take over the regulation of Formula One from the FIA” is something that Max Mosley succeeded in doing, “and to expropriate the commercial rights for itself” is what Bernie Ecclestone once did. Strange that “These are not objectives which the FIA can accept” once the boot is on the other foot.

The FIA reject the notion that the governance structures need changed. But they have an odd way of showing it. One paragraph they talk about how important it is that Formula 1 has a “strong and impartial regulator”. Then in literally the next paragraph, they keep a straight face while admitting that Ferrari have been “officially (as well as unofficially)” represented on the WMSC since 1981. This is the “impartiality” of the FIA that is so important?

According to the FIA, the “Background” of the current political war is based on the fact that Honda pulled out of Formula 1 in 2008. This, apparently, was a bad thing, as it showed that teams could exit F1 at a moment’s notice. Quite why this should be a surprise to Max Mosley stumps me, because no fewer than 23 teams — easily enough to fill two healthy sets of grids — have left the sport since Max Mosley became President of the FIA in 1993 (I may have missed some out — this is just the quick count I did).

• Arrows
• BAR
• Benetton
• Footwork
• Forti
• Honda
• Jaguar
• Jordan
• Larrousse
• Ligier
• Lola
• Lotus
• Midland
• Minardi
• Pacific
• Prost
• Sauber
• Scuderia Italia
• Simtek
• Spyker
• Stewart
• Super Aguri
• Tyrrell

Apparently, Max Mosley didn’t notice all of this. Quite why the Honda scenario made him sit up unlike all the others is a mystery to me.

It is even more odd when you consider that the transition from Honda to Brawn has been a massive success. Unlike some of the above teams — which sometimes embarrassingly went to the wall mid-season, leaving gaps on the grid — the sale of the Honda team was a relatively successful pull-out. Yes, it was messy over the winter. But the Brawn team is reaping the rewards, and it’s a great story for F1. Yet, for Max Mosley, it’s a major problem.

There is also, in this statement, a tacit admission that a budget cap system in a single-tier Championship cannot result in a grid full of the best cars that perform to the standard that fans have come to expect from Formula 1:

…the World Motor Sport Council (WMSC) decision of 17 March… introduced a voluntary financial regulation and technical freedoms for the capped teams to enable their cars to achieve Formula One levels of performance.

When the two-tier system was scrapped (as the FIA insist it has been), they decided to retain the budget cap and ditch the technical freedoms. Therefore, in the FIA’s own words, the “pinnacle of motor sport” will no longer contain cars which are “able to achieve Formula One levels of performance”.

Claims that the budget cap would damage the DNA of Formula 1 are rejected by the FIA, who say that the budget cap is a good idea because it evens the playing field. “Isn’t Formula One above all about competition?” I would agree that Formula 1 is about competition. And the budget cap idea is completely antithetical to the principle of meritocratic championship. A budget cap doesn’t “even the playing field”. It rigs the playing field in favour of teams who would not otherwise be in F1 on merit.

There is also no mention of the fact that the one credible new team on the FIA’s entry list, USF1, declared its intention to enter the sport long before the budget cap proposals were announced. USF1 is totally indifferent towards the budget cap, and has dropped a hint that it entered as a non-cost-capped team. It also seems as though the smallest of the current teams, Force India (which split off from Fota for legal reasons), is not interested in the cost cap either.

The FIA claims that “Left to their own devices, at least half the existing teams would have adopted those [budget cap] rules.” This neatly sidesteps the fact that left to their own devices, all of the current Fota teams joined Fota and remain members of Fota as I write.

The FIA says that its actions have been motivated by the need for “new entrants needed to know urgently if they had a place in the Championship.” That is completely contradicted by the way they have treated teams such as Lola like political pawns. Indeed, Lola have decided to withdraw its F1 entry, so incensed were they at the FIA’s behaviour. In the process, Lola have dropped a heavy hint that they will join any potential Fota-led breakaway series (more about that theory can be read on Will Buxton’s blog and at Grandprix.com).

So, what do we want? Top-level grand prix racing? Or Max Mosley’s Formula None?

Indeed, Luca di Montezemolo practically made it the defining policy of Fota. It must be disconcerting for him to see that already one Fota member has undermined this.

The Williams team’s explanation is interesting though. Their CEO, Adam Parr, has gone out of his way to point out that Williams is still fully aligned with Fota:

The unity of FOTA is of paramount importance to Williams. Yesterday we joined the other members of FOTA in writing to the FIA (International Automobile Federation) to request a continuing effort to find a compromise concerning the regulations for 2010.

We believe that under the leadership of (Ferrari president Luca) di Montezemolo and (Toyota motorsport president) John Howett, FOTA has extracted some very significant concessions from the FIA.

These include not only the procedural aspects of the budget cap but also other elements that will enable the higher budget teams to participate.

But explaining the team’s decision to enter the 2010 Championship, contrary to Fota policy, Mr Parr has essentially said that Williams felt that it had no option but to enter the 2010 World Championship:

Williams has — and has always maintained — that we have a binding contract with both FOM (Ecclestone’s Formula One Management) and the FIA to participate in the world championship from 2008 to 2010.

Presumably if Williams has a binding contract, so do other teams. I assume the binding contract is the Concorde Agreement. In a way, therefore, it is unsurprising that it is the manufacturer-backed teams who are standing up to the FIA the most. Williams can’t really afford to breach a contract. But manufacturers have enough money — economic downturn or not — to buy their way out, just as Honda essentially did.

But if it is the case that all these F1 teams are contractually obliged to participate in the World Championship in 2010, why is the FIA asking them all to re-enter?

That’s all well and good if FOTA turns out to be half-decent and come up with good solutions. Unfortunately, the signs are now that the teams’ ideas for the future of Formula 1 are every bit as barmy as Mad Max’s.

Take a paragraph buried in Pitpass’s story on Luca di Montezemolo’s whines about the Singapore Grand Prix earlier this week. As it happens, I kind of agree with most of what di Montezemolo had to say, although that is for a different post. But as though the shock of agreeing with the execrable Ferrari President (who also happens to be President of FOTA) wasn’t enough, what Pitpass revealed about FOTA’s early ideas literally left me open-mouthed in shock and disillusionment.

We hear that at last week’s meeting a number of issues which could result in a seismic change to the sport were discussed, including standard transmissions, standard wheels, standard brakes and standard rear wings.

We hear there may even be a vote on whether F1 should have a weight handicap system!

Excuse me for swearing, but what the very fuck?! What is this pish? Standard transmissions, wheels, brakes and even aero? Why not go the whole hog and throw in standard drivers as well? We might as well pay to watch a glorified Scalextric race.

This is beginning to look like a complete stitch-up. I know the teams desperately want to cut costs, but this is just extreme. With practically spec cars, the only competition left in F1 will be over who has the biggest motorhome and the best catering.

Lest the powers-that-be forget, Formula 1 is supposed to be all about watching the best drivers in the best cars, and that means teams constantly innovating in as many areas as possible. F1 is supposed to be about technological excellence. FOTA’s plan sounds like a watered-down European version of IndyCar — and there is a reason why so few people watch those lorries tootling round the place.

If you want to watch a spec series, you can take your pick. There is GP2, A1GP (if they can ever get round to actually building the blasted cars), World Series by Renault and now even Max Mosley’s sorry Formula Two scheme. That is not to mention the literally countless spec series that operate lower down the chain.

If even Formula 1 becomes a spec series with standard this, that and the other, what is left? Please. We have to have at least one motor racing category that is dedicated to technological advancement. The world is already over-populated with spec series that there would simply be no point in F1 transforming into one.

I haven’t even gone into the weight handicap system. Needless to say, this would be a total disaster for F1. We want to see the best drivers and the best cars win. That is what sport is supposed to be about. Why should people be punished for being fast? What a load of nonsense. Remember, BTCC’s figures went off a cliff when they introduced their ludicrous ballast system. Why do they think we want to see fast cars going slowly? Keith skewers weight handicap systems here as well.

Meanwhile, Martin Whitmarsh has unveiled FOTA’s big plan for spicing up the Grand Prix weekend. But it doesn’t sound very spicy to me. Apparently, the biggest problem with Formula 1 is Fridays! Silly me for not noticing! And what is the great thing that is going to solve this ill? A mickey mouse time trial with a cash prize!

WTF?! First of all, Fridays are the one bit of F1 that are more-or-less perfect if you ask me. They are called practice sessions, I get to watch the cars practicing. For me, that is a win. There is a certain pleasure to be derived from watching F1 cars do their thing at high speed but without necessarily competing with one another.

Why does this — of all aspects of the F1 weekend — need to be tampered with? Why does there need to be competitive action on a Friday? As far as I’m concerned, Friday is for practicing. Competitive action is for a Sunday.

Don’t forget that no-one will watch anything if it happens on a Friday. People are at work. They’re doing other things. Remember the doomed experiment with spreading qualifying over two days. That was pretty hastily dropped because they realised that no-one could be bothered watching the Sunday morning session — and that was a Sunday, never mind a Friday!

As for having a cash prize, I mean please. This isn’t a game show — it’s Formula 1. Besides, do they really think fans will be that bothered to watch mega-rich drivers getting even richer? No thanks.

See more on this from Clive at F1 Insight, with whom I totally agree on this.

I think I preferred the chaos and deadlock of old over these hare-brained schemes of FOTA.

The Formula One Inside Line With Maurice Hamilton and Ian Phillips

Okay, so it’s not the catchiest title, but the podcast itself is excellent. I assume it is similar to The Guardian‘s F1 podcast which was also fronted by Maurice Hamilton and Ian Phillips. For whatever reason the newspaper isn’t responsible for the podcast any more, but it lives on independently.

Maurice Hamilton and Ian Phillips are well-known voices to listeners of BBC Radio 5 Live’s coverage of Formula 1 races. I can tell you, ‘The Inside Line’ is not an exaggeration when it comes to this pair. They certainly know what’s what in the paddock.

The Canadian GP podcast contains everything I have come to expect from this podcast — an incisive review of the race’s major events, and an insider’s take on the paddock gossip. Here, the experience of Maurice Hamilton’s decades writing about F1 and Ian Phillip’s journalistic background combined with the insider knowledge attained in his role as Force India’s Director of Business Affairs comes into its own.

This podcast contains the clearest explanation of the simmering war between Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley I have heard yet. There is also an explanation that every team in the paddock and everyone else involved wants a Concorde Agreement except the FIA. And the threats of a breakaway are quite real. And Luca di Montezemolo did mean to say that Max Mosley should step down. Ian Phillips explains why very well, and I’d recommend you go and listen to the podcast for the full explanation.

Then Maurice Hamilton’s connections allows him to bring us the fact that Bernie Ecclestone and Luca di Montezemolo were spotted having lunch together in New York. It’s pretty clear now that something is happening, and the discussion in this podcast has made that more clear than anything else I have read in the past few weeks.

This isn’t the first time The Inside Line podcast has come up with the goods. Of course, this year’s Monaco Grand Prix will always be remembered for the rotten luck that Adrian Sutil encountered. Who better, therefore, than Ian Phillips to get literally the inside line on the race’s top story? And being stationed in the Force India garage meant that they got a good interview with Adrian Sutil as well.

That podcast also contained a pretty trenchant criticism of Max Mosley’s letter that was sent out in the run-up to the Monaco Grand Prix. To top it off, Ian Phillips had more information on the controversial press conference that was perceived to be rigged in Max Mosley’s favour, with Gerhard Berger reading out a prepared statement.

Clearly, the star of the show is Ian Phillips. But even when he was away, the podcast still came up with the goods. Because the person who stood in was no less a person than Mike Gascoyne, Force India’s Chief Technical Officer. He was surprisingly good in his analysis of the Turkish Grand Prix as well.

That weekend Maurice Hamilton got the credit for the “one car teams” theory that was beginning to emerge. That was because he repeated it on the Chequered Flag which is heard by more listeners. But listening to The Inside Line podcast, it’s clear that the theory actually originated with Mike Gascoyne.

If there is one problem with the Inside Line podcast is that it’s clearly recorded a bit too early for a full analysis of the race to take place. Often mechanical problems will be glossed over as it is still unclear why a driver retired. Some more time may be needed to allow the dust to settle. But there are probably time constraints as no doubt everyone involved in the podcast has other commitments to wrap up, flights to catch and so on.

However, by my reckoning there really is no better way of getting a feel of what’s really happening in the paddock than this podcast. It doesn’t have the same backing that the Chequered Flag gets from the BBC, so The Inside Line is not so well known. But it deserves to be heard by as many Formula 1 fans.

But if the vote was designed to assert Max Mosley’s authority, it has surely not worked. There are still the same calls for his resignation, even from people like Luca di Montezemolo (if he could make his mind up about it) and Bernie Ecclestone.

Mosley’s critics can still point out that the countries that voted for Max Mosley were mostly represented by small clubs, some of them caravan clubs who have not the slightest bit of interest in motor racing. The Dutch body, ANWB, went as far as to point out that smaller clubs potentially had a lot to gain financially from voting for Max Mosley.

It is said that the FIA clubs that voted in favour of Max Mosley represented as little as 5% of the FIA clubs’ total membership. This vote has done anything but put a lid on the controversy.

Max Mosley said in his letter a few weeks ago that he intended to stay on as FIA President, implying that he was the only person capable of keeping the FIA together in a time of “crisis”. Well, it looks to me as though if anything his desperation to keep his grubby hands on the steering wheel has exacerbated any crisis there may have been. In fact, it has created a new crisis.

The German body ADAC has already reduced its level of participation in the FIA and the American AAA is hinting that it will do much the same thing. Those are two of the biggest clubs in the FIA and such a split undoubtedly weakens the FIA. Indeed, if the ADAC continues to distance itself from the FIA, the Nürburgring may not return to the F1 calendar.

Way to contain a crisis. Of course, Max Mosley should have done the honourable thing and resigned as soon as the allegations were revealed. Any other public figure would do this. Max Mosley’s ability to hang on to power may have come as a surprise to outsiders who are acquainting themselves with this despicable little man for the first time. But we all know from the many years he has been in charge of F1 that he is not an honourable man.

I can well believe Bernie Ecclestone when he says that Max Mosley’s claim that he will give up the post in 2009 is a bluff. After all, Max Mosley already did resign in 2004 before changing his mind. And do the actions of Max Mosley over the past few months really look like the actions of someone who will be happy to give up the post in a year’s time anyway? Hardly. This man is truly desperate to hang on to his position. Who is to say that Mosley won’t try to remain in his position as FIA President until he dies as Bernie asserts?

As Bernie Ecclestone says, Max Mosley is a man who enjoys conflict. Indeed, we now know rather too much about the kicks he gets out of “robust” dealings and handing out big punishments. How can we take Max Mosley seriously any more? A lot of people thought that last year’s $100 million-sized punishment of McLaren (a value plucked straight out of a cheesy movie dialogue) was completely out of proportion. Well I think we all now suspect some new reasons behind his behaviour last year. How are we to trust the FIA the next time they decide to punish someone? The jokes will write themselves.

Max Mosley has lost all credibility. Since the story broke, the man has been uninvited left, right and centre. Uninvited from Bahrain. Uninvited from Israel. Uninvited from Spain. Unwelcome in Monaco. Meeting after meeting cancelled. This is a man who is patently unfit to do his job any more — and he knows it himself as he has offered to leave all public representation to his deputies.

He might have won the vote, but the FIA is like a banana republic. The credible voices are opposed to him. And no dodgy confidence vote victory will restore Mosley’s credibility. Will governments now be eager to start meeting him again all of a sudden? Will the royal families of Bahrain, Spain and Monaco be willing to shake his hand now? Of course not.

So where now for the FIA? As I have already suggested, it seems clear that Mosley’s decision to hang on at all costs has exacerbated or even created a conflict in F1′s corridors of power. Far from patching up any conflict, Max Mosley has worsened it. I am sure that if he resigned in the first place, a smooth transition would have been much easier to achieve than it will be now.

In Bernie Ecclestone, Max Mosley has created a formidable enemy. Who is to say now that the FIA will retain control over F1? In Clive’s interesting post on the future of the FIA, he suggests that we may be seeing the end of the FIA as governing body of F1. And why not?

I have thought for a very long time now that the FIA was far too strong — that it put far too much power in the hands of just one person. And the recent talks of a split between sporting and touring clubs rather suggests to me that there is no obvious reason why the sporting and road-motoring roles of the FIA really need to be dealt with together in the same organisation.

Does Formula 1 really need to be under the control of the FIA? I think not. Say what you want about Bernie Ecclestone, but if you ask me I would choose Bernie over Max any day. We may complain from time to time about Bernie Ecclestone, but at least he is not malicious in my view. Max Mosley is pure poison from top to bottom.

2007 F1 season review

A series of posts

1. F1 season review: the backmarkers
2. F1 season review: the frontrunners
3. F1 season review: the constructors (11th–6th)
4. F1 season review: the constructors (top 5)
5. F1 season review: broadcasts
6. F1 season review: podcasts
7. F1 season review: websites

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.