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

Archive: Martin Brundle

Play BBC F1 bingo!

26 June 2010 18:07

Categories: Formula 1, Media, Television

The BBC’s coverage of Formula 1 is great, but we have become highly accustomed to seeing the same people being interviewed time and time again. Multiple interviews with Martin Whitmarsh and Christian Horner are guaranteed.

And the BBC appears to have a curious obsession with Lotus. It feels like they have been given ten times as much coverage as Virgin and Hispania, the other new teams.

During today’s qualifying pre-show, I decided to play a spot of BBC F1 bingo on my F1-based Twitter account @vee8. Following an interview with Lotus driver Jarno Trulli and Mercedes boss Ross Brawn, I began to twitch:

BBC F1 bingo: Lotus – tick, Ross Brawn – tick. Now just waiting for Christian Horner and Martin Whitmarsh. Then Whitmarsh again.

I got a lot of response, particularly as the interviews with Christian Horner and Martin Whitmarsh duly appeared very soon afterwards! Double Whitmarsh was completed when the McLaren boss was among the first to be interviewed after qualifying had finished.

So I’ve decided to play for real, this time choosing my five bingo boxes in advance. Here are my chosen five:

Ross Brawn
Stefano Domenicali
Stefano Domenicali
Christian Horner
Martin Whitmarsh

As you can see, I have decided to take a risk by gambling on a Double Domenicali.

I will face strong competition from lookingspiffy:

Right, my BBC #F1 bingo card – Whitmarsh, Domenicali, Horner (possibly double Horner?) and Sam Michael as a wild card.

That is a good-looking bingo card. Sam Michael could easily get a look-in on the back of the very strong performance Williams had in qualifying today. Double Horner could be difficult to achieve though.

Who would you put on your bingo card? Don’t make it too easy. Throw in a wildcard or a double appearance. It doesn’t have to be an interview either. For instance, you might like to include gratuitous mentions of Eddie Jordan’s shirt, an appearance by Tanja Bauer from Sky Deutschland, or Martin Brundle pushing his way in front of another journalist during the gridwalk.

And no Legardisms please. The Legard-bashing is tiresome. Besides, we are ideally looking for all of the boxes to be filled pre-race, before the FOM five minute sting.

Finally, this is nothing against the BBC’s coverage! I am a big fan of the BBC’s coverage, which is a quantum leap ahead of what ITV were doing. I would just like a bit more variety in their pre- and post-race coverage.

9 comments

Trouble brewing at both Red Bull and McLaren?

30 May 2010 19:18

Categories: Formula 1

I was absolutely buzzing after the Turkish Grand Prix, a race that had almost everything you could ask for. Even though superficially all the pre-race hype had Red Bull easily in the lead, it turned out that McLaren have turned up the wick and give them a really hard fight.

Red Bull hung on to the lead, as McLaren failed to take advantage during the pitstops. Thereafter, we were treated to an amazingly tense battle at the very front, with all four front-running cars running within a couple of seconds of each other after the pitstops had taken place.

I am struggling to think of any other time when the front-running cars were so close to each other so far into the race. For me, this was racing at its very best. Who needs refuelling?

Red Bull threw away a “sure-fire 1-2″

By lap 40, the McLarens had fallen back a tad, but Sebastian Vettel was still racing closely with Mark Webber. It transpires that Webber was using up more fuel than Vettel, with the German able to save fuel while running in the race leader’s slipstream. Webber therefore had to start conserving fuel sooner than Vettel, whose pace had picked up.

That gave Vettel the golden opportunity to seize the race lead. But disaster struck when the two collided in the most dramatic fashion as Vettel attempted to overtake. The German had to retire, but Webber limped on to the pits and ended up in third place.

It’s one of the most extraordinary things I can remember seeing in F1. This is exactly what I love about the sport. Once you think you’ve seen it all, something even more incredible happens. Red Bull should have had an easy 1-2. But after being pressed by McLaren, Red Bull have ended up, in the words of team boss Christian Horner, handing 43 points on a plate to McLaren.

Red Bull face a driver management nightmare

It is the worst case scenario for Red Bull, not only because a relatively safe 1-2 was lost. The team management now has a complete nightmare job — it must try to keep both drivers happy when inevitably fingers are being pointed and jabbed in opposite directions.

Initial reaction was that the crash was Vettel’s fault. He had half a chance to pass Webber, and bit off more than he could chew. While the speed advantage ensured that Vettel could run alongside Webber, he wasn’t quite fast enough to overtake cleanly. Presumably worried that he would be compromised going into the corner by running so close to the left edge of the track, Vettel turned in towards Webber.

Webber held his line, having given Vettel just enough space and no more. Even though the onboard footage shows Webber trying to steer slightly to the right, Vettel’s steering movement was much more extreme, and he ended up colliding straight into his team mate’s car.

My brother and I strongly disagreed about this during the race. I feel that it was Vettel’s responsibility to ensure that he could overtake in a clean manner. Webber left enough room for Vettel to run alongside him, and it was Vettel who changed direction. This appeared to be the broad consensus viewpoint among most F1 pundits.

It is highly surprising therefore to see the Red Bull management appear to come out in Vettel’s favour, at the risk of upsetting Mark Webber even when most people are taking Webber’s side. If I was Mark Webber, I’d be pretty pissed off by this turn of events.

In a way, you can understand why the team would want to back Sebastian Vettel. He is clearly the team’s best long-term hope, even if in the short- to medium-term Mark Webber is often the faster of the two.

Moreover, Vettel is the only tangible evidence of a vaguely successful driver coming out of the Red Bull young drivers’ programme which the drinks company has poured so much resource into. I am sure Helmut Marko is a proud person, and he would like to think of himself as a mentor to the drivers he that have been through his drivers’ programme over the years. Mark Webber is only at Red Bull to plug the embarrassing vacant gap left over by the complete lack of any other decent drivers to emerge from the programme.

Helmut Marko may deny that the team favours Sebastian Vettel. But the fact he and his colleagues in the Red Bull Racing management have been prepared to publicly blame Mark Webber for the incident — when the vast majority of the F1 community holds the opposite point of view — is indicative.

F1 journalists have certainly been left surprised by Red Bull’s actions after the race. Will Buxton has been particularly vociferous on Twitter, first saying: “Total BS being smelt around the paddock.” He later added:

Helmut Marko – “Vettel was 2 metres ahead”. Riiiiiight. That’s why he and Mark made contact, yeah? Red BS stinking up the place.

Did McLaren also crack?

Meanwhile, are things quietly unravelling at McLaren too? It has not been attracting as much attention, but it’s worth pointing out that the race between Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button was also distinctly odd.

At the very same point of the track a few laps later, Jenson Button got a run on Lewis Hamilton, and the pair had a ding-dong battle for several corners. Luckily, this time round both drivers were more sensible. A good, tough, clean fight was the main result.

Button briefly led, but Hamilton ultimately prevailed. Immediately afterwards, Button suddenly fell right off the pace.

After the race, I thought Lewis Hamilton looked a bit wooden and tense on the podium. Both Martin Brundle and Anthony Davidson picked up on his unusual body language, which seemed quite negative for someone who had just won a race.

Both McLaren drivers seemed confused when they were talking to each other just before going out for the podium ceremony. They were having an interesting conversation until it appeared that they suddenly remembered a camera and microphone were picking up their conversation and broadcasting it on the FOM world feed!

The tension between the driver’s interest and the team’s interest

This pair of situations throws the issue of team orders back into the spotlight. Superficially, team orders are banned — but that doesn’t stop teams giving drivers cryptic messages, or using mechanisms such as instructions to “save fuel” in order to slow down one of the drivers.

Team orders shouldn’t really be banned, as it is understandable that teams will always want to look at the bigger pictures as far as the whole team is concerned. It has always been a part of motor racing, and always will be. But there is always a tension when a driver disagrees with the team’s view.

This tension between the driver’s individual interest and the need for a driver to also play a role as a “team mate” is one of the most fascinating aspects of Formula 1 for me. It doesn’t actually crop up all that often. But when it does, the results can be explosive, as we have seen today.

We have seen that in both front-running teams in Turkey. The situation arose with both teams because — uniquely — all four drivers were running so close with one another. Even fourth placed Button could literally see the leading car at all points during the race. Each one of those four drivers would have felt like they had a major chance of winning today. That’s when egos collide, and team orders begin to unravel.

McLaren’s engineers said over the team radio that “we pushed them and they cracked”, referring to Red Bull. Given Helmut Marko’s comments that Vettel needed to push Webber because he in turn was being pushed by Hamilton appears to vindicate this. But, in their own little way, did McLaren also crack today?

Update: See also the BBC’s Andrew Benson discussing the situations at Red Bull and McLaren.

4 comments

Now we know the truth about "crashgate"

15 September 2009 23:39

Categories: Opinion

With the most recent revelations about the allegations surrounding Renault, all is becoming clear. It is just another one of Max Mosley’s power games — his parting shot, if you will. Having dispensed with enemy number one, Ron Dennis, earlier on in the year, Mosley has moved on to target number two: Flavio Briatore.

This is the inescapable conclusion one reaches when digesting the fact that Pat Symonds has been offered immunity if he “tells the truth” or, perhaps more accurately, in return for landing Flav in the shit whether it’s true or not. The scheme seems particularly odd given that most of the evidence thus far appears to implicate only Nelsinho Piquet and Pat Symonds for concocting any scheme that may have existed.

Even Piquet himself in his statement to the FIA seems reticent to directly accuse Flavio Briatore of concocting a conspiracy. Piquet only talks about Briatore’s presence in a meeting in which Symonds and Piquet discuss the crash strategy:

The proposal to deliberately cause an accident was made to me shortly before the race took place, when I was summoned by Mr. Briatore and Mr. Symonds in Mr. Briatore’s office. Mr. Symonds, in the presence of Mr. Briatore, asked me if I would be willing to sacrifice my race for the team by “causing a safety car”.

Instead, Nelsinho Piquet’s ire for Briatore is based on the fact that Briatore was reluctant to renew his contract. Boo hoo! Martin Brundle isn’t terribly impressed with that line of reasoning:

His rationale is that his contractual option hadn’t been taken the previous month so he was stressed and wanted to please the team. Try waiting the whole winter to sign a race-by-race contract days before the first grand prix of the season — that’s stress, but still not enough to crash a car intentionally.

I must agree with this. Normally, I would think that the normal course of action for a driver trying to renew his contract would be to improve his performances, not go around deliberately crashing.

For me, the only smoking gun we have seen so far is the reluctance of Pat Symonds to answer some of the questions the FIA investigators asked him. He was very reticent to discuss any plans he may have made with Piquet, while at the same time the idea was discussed. Symonds says it was Piquet who came up with the idea, while Piquet alleges that Symonds went as far as to specify on which lap and corner Piquet should crash.

Other evidence is inconclusive. The telemetry, which reveals that Piquet instinctively lifted but later applied full throttle while his rear wheels were spinning during the crash, is described by Symonds as “very unusual data”. But Piquet was no stranger to crashing. Meanwhile, the pit wall communications reveal little interesting, apart from an anxiety on the part of Piquet to know which lap he was on, and the fact that the team was concerned about Piquet’s condition following the crash.

So the evidence so far is that Piquet claims to have deliberately caused a crash. Symonds has acknowledged that a discussion took place, but refuses to talk any more about it. So where does Briatore fit in with all this?

We are now in the ludicrous situation where the two people who appear to be implicated the most have been offered immunity. Of those accused, that leaves just Briatore, against whom there appears to be very little evidence. It is surely not a coincidence that Max Mosley sees Flavio Briatore as an enemy.

There are other interesting aspects about the FIA’s behaviour over this scandal. Despite Max Mosley’s claim that he is greatly concerned about the leaks, The Times‘s Ed Gorman reveals that all of these leaks have come from the FIA! That newspaper would know — it is a common leaking outlet for both Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone.

Surely, Ed Gorman suggests, it is no coincidence that this entire scandal has overshadowed Ari Vatanen’s campaign to become FIA President. Mosley has made no secret of the fact that he would prefer his ally Jean Todt to replace him in the role, plumbing even his already-extraordinarily low depths to endorse Todt on FIA letterhead.

Vatanen has struggled to make headway in the media against the weight of the Mosley/Todt machine and recently his efforts to have his voice heard have been drowned out by leaks on the Renault case, widely thought to be from the FIA, and by strategically placed FIA announcements on the scandal.

I have to confess that I am not convinced by Ari Vatanen. To me, he seems like a failed MEP who is seeking attention and looking for a new purpose in life. His campaign has seemed ill-prepared in comparison to Jean Todt who has clearly been waiting to fill this role for a very long time. But what Todt has going against him is his anti-sporting record while at Peugeot and Ferrari, and the fact that his campaign has been unfairly advantaged by the FIA, which appears to be corrupt from tip to toe.

This is all turning out to be very convenient for the Mosley–Todt camp. Mosley has spent much of the past year trying to edge the manufacturers out of F1 (mere years after he lambasted the Williams-style model which he now apparently thinks is the life and soul of the sport!). He is clearly not good friends with Briatore, and is doing his very best to bring Briatore down. Very interesting that this comes mere months after he successfully brought Ron Dennis down, as though Mosley realised that this year was his last chance to do it. The Todt advantage is the icing on the cake.

I really am sick of the FIA. If an actual government behaved like this, there would be riots on the streets.

21 comments

Ruby on Rails!

25 August 2009 21:28

Categories: Report

This year’s European Grand Prix was not the best race we’ve seen so far this year — but at least it wasn’t the utter snoozer we had last year. There are at least a few interesting talking points.

First, of course, is the performance of Rubens Barrichello, which was truly masterful. For once, the most experienced driver in the history of F1 has shown that the statistic doesn’t just mean he’s old — it means he can do the business as well. It is his first win for five years, and who would begrudge him this one?

Brawn were forced to spend Friday experimenting with set-up in an attempt to get to the issues that have prevented them from being competitive since Turkey. Despite this, Barrichello put all the car’s troubles behind him and didn’t seem to put a foot wrong all weekend.

I heard someone say that an emotional Rubens is a quick Rubens. It appears as though Felipe Massa’s injury has had some kind of impact on Barrichello’s form, not least because Massa has apparently been giving Barrichello tips on which lines to take in Valencia.

Certainly, not all of the performance can be put down to an improvement in the car because Jenson Button was thoroughly outclassed. In fairness, Button’s race was immediately compromised by a disastrous first lap — fatal on a circuit like Valencia. Even so, the Championship leader was strangely off the pace compared with Barrichello.

Barrichello even seemed to have the upper hand before the race started, as he was heavy on fuel and could pit later. It was marginal though, and it took until the third stint for the advantage to finally be realised.

There is a slight debate over whether McLaren’s bungled pit stop handed Barrichello the lead on a plate, though most agree that Barrichello would have ended up ahead anyway. Who knows how he would have coped under pressure from Hamilton though if that pacey McLaren was closer to him.

Hamilton and McLaren must count this as a lost victory, not a good second place. After the race, Hamilton’s words said he wasn’t disappointed or upset about the team’s mistake. But for me, his tone of voice said it all. This wasn’t the relaxed and happy Hamilton that we saw after the race in Hungary, and I detected more than a bit of tension in his voice in the post-race interviews.

I think Hamilton thought he had the race in the bag. I remarked at one point during the first stint that it sounded like he was taking it easy. Soon afterwards, Martin Brundle said that Hamilton was nowhere near his limit. For much of his first stint he was lapping in the high 1:39s or low 1:40s. In both his second and third stints he ended up consistently lapping rather faster, in the mid 1:39s.

It’s strange, because Hamilton has traditionally been criticised for not being conservative enough. But this is one instance where I think if he had pushed harder he would have won. His lead was indeed fairly comfortable during the first stint, but I feel he could have pressed home his advantage further.

Kimi Räikkönen scored his second consecutive podium in a row, and it was another relatively bland yet quick performance. He was barely on the television and there was apparently nothing interesting about his race, apart from the fact that he finished third.

This is interesting bearing in mind all the silly season issues, particularly while a question mark remains over the future competitiveness of Felipe Massa. People constantly say they struggle to understand Räikkönen, and many speculated about how he’d react to having Michael Schumacher as a team mate. On the current evidence, you have to say that he appears to have reacted rather well to no longer having Massa as a team mate. Räikkönen’s oft-predicted move to rallying in 2010 seems less likely now.

Fernando Alonso was another one who had a relatively uneventful race. But he and the Spanish fans will take the three points over the lap one retirement he suffered last year in Valencia. Alonso still does what I expect him to do in mediocre machinery, but is not yet showing enough of his double World Champion class which we saw last year.

BMW Sauber will be relatively pleased with how their weekend unfolded. The upgrade seems to have worked, with the team having its best qualifying of the season and Robert Kubica scoring a point. They are no longer the underachieving tail-enders, though you would still expect more.

As for the other big-name underachievers, Toyota, they are scratching their head over the fact that they were actually quite quick during the race, but were neutered by a poor qualifying performance. This year’s Toyota has always been bad round twisty places (such as Monaco and sector three at Barcelona), but despite its supposed “street circuit” status, Valencia isn’t actually all that twisty.

True enough, Timo Glock set the fastest lap during the race. Pascal Vasselon says that all of Glock’s laps during the race were fast. Looking at the raw lap times it doesn’t seem that way, but Glock’s slow times in the early part of the race are said to be down to a heavy fuel load. All told, it must be pretty frustrating to be fast, yet finish a dismal 14th, ahead of just the three new drivers.

There is one big team I haven’t yet mentioned. Red Bull — could you get a much more disastrous race? Webber was off the pace all race, never looked like scoring a decent result and ended up finishing behind a BMW. Meanwhile, Vettel’s brand new Renault engine rasped its way into an escape road just a day after another one spewed all over half the circuit. That’s not good for Renault’s engine department, but more on that in a future article.

Vettel wondered aloud if he is a “killer” of his engines in his post-race interviews. He has now used up seven of his eight engines, and with Spa and Monza coming up he is almost certain to take a grid penalty at some point in the next few races. If his Championship chances weren’t severely dented already, this near-certain penalty surely hammers a sturdy nail into the coffin.

Red Bull’s capitulation this weekend means that yet again Jenson Button has got away with a dire weekend virtually unscathed. Despite only finishing 7th, his Championship lead decreased by just half a point. Yet again, Button looks as likely as ever to become World Champion despite not having any good results. In Turkey his lead was 26 points. But after four dire races, his lead has only been cut by less than a third of that amount.

Since his last win four races ago, there have been four different winners. The lack of any real challenger gives Button breathing space. And for the first time in a while, Barrichello has moved up into second place in the Championship, hammering home the fact that Red Bull have not quite done enough to prove they can win the Championship.

But Spa will be a very different race, and conventional wisdom suggests that it will suit Red Bull. But do they have enough in the tank? Webber needs to overcome a substantial 20.5 point deficit to Button.

1 comment

BMW – Bizarre Manufacturer Withdrawal

30 July 2009 22:08

Categories: Opinion

The other big news of yesterday was the sudden withdrawal of BMW from Formula 1. This season will be their last.

It can’t be called a complete shock. It had become very fashionable in F1 circles to say something like, “I am sure one or two or all of BMW, Renault and Toyota will pull out of F1 this season.” But the rumours were particularly centred on Renault and Toyota, and BMW were probably widely considered to be the team out of those three with the most stable future.

That made BMW’s exit a shock. In a way, though, it is not a surprise. It was well known that when BMW bought the Sauber team back in 2005, they set themselves very ambitious targets that were to be met within a matter of a few years. This was the basis for the team’s famously methodical (although too-clinical-for-some) gradual, targets-based approach.

So while it may seem a bit of an over-reaction for BMW to pull out so suddenly, it’s worth remembering that this was the year when they were supposed to be fighting for the championship (or regular wins, as the target appeared to become more recently). Instead they have one of the slowest cars in the field. Worse still, unlike with Honda in 2008, BMW fully expected to be fighting for the championship. They thought they had a great car.

Instead, 2009 has been a complete disaster for them. They put too much faith in their kers, a device which they thought would give them an advantage but proved to be anything but. Over the winter they were the only team favouring kers, but it turns out that Mercedes have a much better one while BMW’s is so useless that they will never use it again.

Now it seems as though the teams have agreed among themselves not to use kers for next season. Such technologies appeared to be a major motivation for BMW’s involvement in Formula 1. It was certainly an aspect they played up in their marketing.

Unfortunately, the way the FIA introduced kers to Formula 1 was a complete botch-job. Kers has been left with a seriously bad reputation, even though McLaren-Mercedes have now managed to make it work for them. Whatever happens to kers in the short term, it will be around for the long term. That was certainly the view of Williams Technical Director Sam Michael when he spoke to bloggers last week.

Perhaps as a result of focusing on kers, BMW’s F1.09 car is not up to the job. It must count as one of the biggest disappointments of the season. Even though Ferrari and McLaren also started the season poorly, those teams have fought their way back to the front. Meanwhile, BMW only seem to have fallen further away from the front as the season has progressed.

During the Hungarian GP weekend, Mario Theissen claimed that BMW had found the cause of the problems that had struck their car and that they would soon see an improvement in performance. The BBC’s commentators, Jonathan Legard and Martin Brundle, were both sceptical as they commented on BMW during the race. Legard said that if they think they’ve got a handle on the problem, they’ve got the wrong handle. Meanwhile, Brundle said that BMW’s statements about their performance sounded like PR-speak.

It is highly unlike BMW, and especially Mario Theissen, to make positive statements if they cannot back it up with evidence. Yet that was what they appeared to do when they said they knew what their problems were, while still qualifying 16th and 19th in a grid of twenty cars.

It wasn’t the only uncharacteristic behaviour from BMW over the weekend. Robert Kubica’s team radio transmissions on Friday have become famous for exhibiting the Pole’s grumpy and fussy attitude. He constantly complains about his car, even when it is setting fast times. Yet during practice in Hungary he actually sounded happy about his car. It was very unusual indeed.

Could it be that the BMW Sauber F1 team knew what was coming? Perhaps their statements about how good their car was becoming were a last-ditch attempt to convince the bosses that an improvement in fortunes was imminent. Obviously it convinced no-one.

Nevertheless, the BMW board deny that their exit from F1 is a kneejerk reaction to this season’s poor performances, with Klaus Draeger saying it was nothing to do with “our current performance or the general economic situation.” But it was obviously on his mind, as he saw fit to mention that, “It only took us three years to establish ourselves as a top team with the BMW Sauber F1 Team. Unfortunately, we were unable to meet expectations in the current season.”

It would be odd, however, for BMW to pull out on the basis of one disappointing season. BMW’s first season on 2006 was a solid start, and with the first car to be fully developed under BMW’s management they firmly established themselves as “best of the rest” behind Ferrari and McLaren. They remained so in 2008, bagging an impressive win in Canada along the way. Before the BMW partnership, Sauber were never so competitive.

Obviously, the fact that the FIA is asking all teams to commit to Formula 1 until 2012 by signing the Concorde Agreement imminently was a crunch moment. We have all seen how a year, or even a few months, is a very long time in the volatile worlds of both F1 politics and the car manufacturing industry. It should be no surprise that, without a crystal ball, a company should be unwilling to make promises it is unsure it will be able to make. You almost sense that this was a deliberate ploy by the FIA to get a high-profile scalp, a theory made all the more likely by the FIA’s highly undignified “I-told-you-so” press release.

As has been widely noted, BMW’s press release is itself written largely in corporate jargon that seeks to hide the real reasons for BMW’s exit. My reading is that they would rather focus on motor sports where they can develop technology, particularly technology which is more road relevant. The political issues surrounding kers will therefore have not helped persuade BMW to stay.

It is not as though BMW wants to distance itself from the FIA either. It has pledged to stay in WTCC, which is an even worse example of FIA mismanagement.

But clearly talk of cost cutting or budget capping or resource restriction, whatever it’s called these days, is not the vision of F1 BMW had for the future. It was prepared to negotiate until the end. But come crunch time, with the Concorde Agreement sitting on the table waiting for the signature, BMW obviously found that the settlement was not what they wanted.

See also Keith’s interesting article on why BMW left F1

6 comments

doctorvee