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

Archive: Maurice Hamilton

Another opinion on the incident

9 September 2008 17:49

Categories: Opinion

Several times on this blog I have recommended The Inside Line podcast with Maurice Hamilton and Ian Phillips. As always, it came up with the goods following the Belgian Grand Prix. Ian Phillips gave his opinion on the incident where Lewis Hamilton cut the chicane.

For those that don’t know, Ian Phillips is Director of Business Affairs at Force India. That team uses Ferrari engines, so Ian Phillips has no particular reason to express an anti-Ferrari viewpoint. Ian Phillips has been in the motor racing business for a long time and has probably seen more motor racing than I can ever hope to watch in my entire lifetime. So his opinion is always worth listening to.

I have transcribed what he said in the podcast below simply because, as it is in podcast form, it is not currently searchable and easy to find on the web. I would highly recommend that you subscribe to the podcast — here is an iTunes link, and here is a non-iTunes one.

The relevant part begins at 6:30. The podcast was recorded before they knew what the outcome of the stewards’ investigation was. According to Maurice Hamilton’s preamble at the beginning, they didn’t even know what the investigation was about, but they did know that there was an investigation. Here is what Ian Phillips had to say:

Lewis — again, this is what we have to state — was mature, because I think it was coming into, was it the last chicane? And he got squeezed by Räikkönen. He was right alongside him — actually… almost in front. Räikkönen squeezed him and made him take the short cut. And you’re not allowed to take that short cut. Well, you can, but you mustn’t gain position.

And of course he came out alongside Räikkönen. But he had the presence of mind straight away — because I don’t think anybody could have told him — he let Räikkönen come alongside. Then he actually let him go in front and pull in front of him. So they went nose to tail. But by the time they got to La Source, he was having another go at him! And it was extraordinary stuff.

But that moment was real maturity and professionalism when he was forced by Räikkönen to cut that chicane and I thought that was great presence of mind. Because he could have thought, “I’ve got this in the bag.” Now that would have been a stewards’ inquiry and that would have been a problem for him.

To my mind he behaved perfectly correctly and did the right thing. I think by then he knew he’d got the upper-hand. I think he’d been frightening Räikkönen. “I’m coming, I’m coming, I’m coming.” And the guy [Kimi Räikkönen] is saying, “Where’s he coming from?!”…

I think the view of the entire paddock is that Lewis is entirely innocent of anything that’s happened in that motor race. He was an absolute hero. Räikkönen was the man making mistakes and ultimately went and threw it in the wall anyway.

But, this is Formula 1. In seven days’ time we’ll be talking from Monza, the home of Ferrari, the reigning world champions. So I won’t predict the outcome of the stewards’ inquiry.

12 comments

Who I'd like to see on the BBC

17 July 2008 18:36

Categories: Opinion

The news that the BBC have got the rights to show Formula 1 from next season have been very exciting. Articles about what we might be getting from the BBC still pop up from time to time on various blogs and occasional snatches of news and rumours make the picture clearer slowly but surely.

But we still know remarkably little about the BBC’s plans. We know that the races will probably be broadcast on HD and that ‘red button’ coverage is almost a certainty, with the BBCi channels carrying coverage of practice sessions.

But who will front the coverage? This is one of the most important aspects of the move to the BBC, as so many people have been begging ITV to get rid of the terrible James Allen. So in the quiet period before the German Grand Prix I thought I’d have a go at constructing my own BBC ‘dream team’.

Lead commentator

The candidates

James Allen currently does this job for ITV. And while he is near-universally disliked, there is always an outside possibility that the BBC will hire him. Against Allen is the fact that he is not a BBC man, and the Beeb are thought to be eager to stamp their authority on F1′s coverage next year and take a very BBC approach to the coverage with BBC people.

In that case, current BBC Radio 5 Live commentator David Croft could well be in for a shout. It seems as though ITV were lining him up for a job on their F1 coverage as he has been fulfilling the main commentator role on the channel’s GP2 coverage this season. I have a soft spot for David Croft, but he has only been commentating for a few years and I don’t think he’s ready for the big gig just yet. He has been known to put his foot in his mouth on the odd occasion and does sometimes have the same cringeworthy James Allen style approach. Croft will probably stay on the radio.

The other obvious choice from within the BBC is Jonathan Legard. For a number of years he was main commentator on Radio 5 Live but left at the height of Schumacher’s dominance in 2004. Since then he has been the BBC station’s chief football reporter. That is a pretty big job. But the job of lead commentator on BBC television may be enough to lure him back to F1. His style is typically BBC: authoritative, but not too excitable. He is probably most likely to get the job.

My choice: Ben Edwards

Always the bridesmaid, never the bride, Ben Edwards is a quality commentator who can often be heard describing a variety of motorsport events. But the main F1 job seems to elude him. He provided commentary for Eurosport and F1 Digital+ in past years, and he has done the narration on the official F1 review video for several years now. But Edwards has never been part of terrestrial F1 coverage.

I don’t see why because he is a perfectly good commentator. He knows his motor racing inside out and conveys excitement better than any of the above names ever could. That style may not suit the BBC too well though. He may also be hindered by the fact that he is not a BBC person, so if the bigwigs at the Beeb want next season’s coverage to have a very BBC flavour, he may well be ignored yet again. Shame.

Colour commentator

The candidates

Martin Brundle is one of the few popular elements of ITV’s F1 coverage, and rightly so. His ability to come up with a witty, pithy comment on the spot leaves you in awe at how this person is not a trained broadcaster but a retired F1 driver. However, his gridwalks of late have descended into farce and does not seem to be quite on top of his game at the moment. He also may be seen as too much of an ITV brand by the BBC.

David Coulthard is currently looking for a job, and he is strongly rumoured to have put pen to paper on a BBC contract. However, DC is an unknown quantity as co-commentator and may be better suited to a punditry role.

Maurice Hamilton currently does this job on Radio 5 Live. He is very knowledgeable about F1 but I feel he doesn’t quite have the razor-sharp mind required for commentating. He is fine on Radio 5 Live, but the TV gig may be better suited to a more polished broadcaster.

My choice: Anthony Davidson

Anthony Davidson would probably be reluctant to take the role. He is, of course, fully focussed on getting a drive in F1. However, pragmatically the chances of that are slim.

He is ideally suited for the role of colour commentator. His performances on Radio 5 Live (and a one-off appearance in the role on ITV) over the years have been nothing short of outstanding, and his colleagues have commented on their awe at his ability to read a situation. Unlike Martin Brundle, he is fresh out of the cockpit as well so knows contemporary F1 better than almost anyone else.

Pitlane reporter

The candidates

This is much more difficult to read. I have not seen many rumours as to who might get this job on the BBC. Nonetheless, there is a gap here that I need to fill so I’ll have to go for it.

Ted Kravitz currently does this job on ITV. As with many of the people above, the BBC may not touch him for this reason. However, he is quite impressive as a broadcaster. You never see him with his feathers ruffled and he often does a good job of digging out stories in the pitlane. However, he has been known to be the king of statement of the obvious: “And they’re putting some fuel in… and some new tyres are going on.” Puh-lease.

My choice: Holly Samos

Holly Samos does an adequate job on Radio 5 Live at the moment. However, rather oddly she seems to be responsible for listing all of the retired drivers from time to time which is very odd. Whether she moves to TV or stays on radio, this unsettling feature of the BBC’s coverage should be dropped.

Anchor

Steve Rider is currently in contract with ITV so will almost certainly not front the BBC’s coverage. That is a bit ironic as Rider orignially moved from the BBC to ITV specifically so that he could present F1 (having previous described his regret that coverage was no longer on the BBC).

Martin Brundle is strongly rumoured to be the anchor of the BBC’s coverage. However, I fear that Brundle will simply be too knowledgeable to be the anchor. The anchor’s role is to ask questions, not answer them, and I think Brundle’s ability is obviously in answering questions. If he is the anchor, he may step on the toes of the pundit beside him. He already does a lot of James Allen’s job currently.

Adrian Chiles has also been rumoured to front the BBC’s coverage. He is genial enough and has a history of presenting sports programmes — though I’m not sure what his knowledge of F1 is like. However, he already has plenty on the go at the moment and his already heavy workload has taken its toll on his private life recently.

I hope the rumour that the Top Gear presenters will be involved is wide of the mark. I haven’t heard anything about this for a long time, so presumably this idea is no longer on the go. Having said that, the Top Gear website has recently launched an F1 blog — another sign that the BBC intends to heavily “cross-fertilise” the two brands.

My choice: anyone from the BBC

The BBC could well choose to give this job to an established BBC sport presenter. It could be someone we don’t really know yet. After all, who was Ted Kravitz before he was ITV’s pitlane reporter?

Paddock pundit

The candidates

David Coulthard would be the ideal paddock pundit. He is fresh out of the cockpit and has a way with words.

Martin Brundle would also be good in this role if he is not the co-commentator.

Mark Blundell does an okay job on ITV, but has joked that he will be buying a new sofa to watch next season’s coverage.

Maurice Hamilton is also a good analyst.

My choice: all of the above (and more?)

The BBC may opt for a revolving door approach to this role, with one person (or maybe two people) doing it one race, and someone else doing it the next. I wouldn’t argue with that.

8 comments

Another scoop for The Inside Line

10 July 2008 00:54

Categories: Opinion

You might recall about a month ago I wrote a post praising The Inside Line podcast which is presented by Maurice Hamilton and Ian Phillips. When they called it The Inside Line, they weren’t joking.

The following week, in the French GP podcast, the pair were discussing the (at that time) new rumour that Donington was in the running to hold the British Grand Prix. While the news on Friday that the Grand Prix would be moving to Donington was described as “surprising”, “shocking” or “unbelievable” by many, I had an inkling that the announcement was coming.

When Ian Phillips was discussing the rumour on The Inside Line podcast the previous week, he pointed out that in his view it was very much a goer. If you want to look for it, it’s 28:30 into the French GP podcast. The thing about what Ian Phillips was saying was that it wasn’t just neutral or half-hearted. He sounded like a man who knew something and he seemed convinced that Donington was in with a decent shout of getting the gig.

As for the suggestions that Donington will not be ready in time for 2010, he had this to say: “Yes, it needs a lot of work — but so does Silverstone.” Moreover, Ian Phillips revealed that there is a faction within the BRDC that says they shouldn’t even bother trying to get a new deal with Bernie Ecclestone.

This is probably the key issue. In Bernie Ecclestone’s mind, Silverstone is simply not up to the standards that are expected of a modern F1 venue in 2008. And he has apparently found dealing with the BRDC an absolute nightmare, with the old gentleman’s club seemingly not able or willing to come up with the goods. Ian Phillips’s suggestion that some within the BRDC actively do not want to come up with the goods, you can well believe that. So why not start from scratch at Donington with people who might want to make it work?

The following week when I read BRDC President Damon Hill say that it was “50/50” whether the GP would go to Donington or Silverstone, I knew the story really had legs. The announcement didn’t just come out of the blue. A “surprise” it was not. I had a suspicion that it was coming, because I heard it on The Inside Line and from Damon Hill himself.

It’s a bit cheesy. I swear I’m not paid to do this. But I really think this is now an utterly unmissable podcast. So if you’re not already subscribed to it, do so now!

My thoughts on the proposed move to Donington will be the subject of a future post

2 comments

In praise of The Inside Line podcast

11 June 2008 18:44

Categories: Opinion

I want to bring attention to a podcast that I think somehow passes under the radar of many F1 fans. I certainly did not pay much attention to it until recently. But the editions I have heard have been A-grade stuff.

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.

9 comments

Three mysterious drivers

20 May 2008 00:58

Categories: Opinion

At last I have finished my exams so I now have more time to post. There is a huge backlog of issues for me to get through, and I’m not sure if I’ll get through them all. I will attempt by condensing posts and including them as ‘mini posts’ in a series. These little sub-sections could have been posts in their own right had I had the time. This first of my catch-up posts looks at the trouble we have nailing down three front-running drivers.

The mystery of Kimi Räikkönen

Clive wrote a post last month revealing his “gnawing doubt” about Kimi Räikkönen.

Why does he throw it off the road so needlessly sometimes? Why has he not blown Massa into the weeds yet? Why does he look so determined at one race and then apathetic at the next? It is all very well blaming it on his enigmatic personality but that explains nothing. The fact is that he is completely unpredictable and it is probably this that makes me doubt him.

There’s no doubt that Räikkönen blows hot and cold. Just look at the first half of 2007 compared to the end of the season. At the start, Kimi was rather unspectacular — almost anonymous. But as the season finale drew closer he became hyper-motivated, more flawless and quicker. The fact that he overcame a 17 point deficit in the final two rounds just says it all.

But now he is looking a bit more average again. In Australia he seemingly couldn’t keep his concentration, spectacularly throwing it off the road needlessly a number of times. In Bahrain and Turkey, too, we saw little of his foot-to-the-floor attitude we saw towards the end of last season. Clive asks, “Must we admit that Massa is on a par with our hero?”

I think it’s a bit much to say that Räikkönen and Massa are on a par with each other. But unquestionably Räikkönen has not become the race-winning machine some people expected him to become five or six years ago.

My own theory is that Räikkönen is genuinely great. But we became too used to Michael Schumacher’s utter dominance. When he retired, we expected someone to immediately fill a Schumacher-sized gap. It doesn’t happen that way.

Schumacher was exceptional in that he was in close contention for the Championship in almost every year of his F1 career (1999 being an exception due to his broken leg, 2005, 1996 and 1993 due to abnormally inferior equipment). No-one before him can claim that level of dominance, and I see no reason to expect anyone after him to claim it either. Not for a long time, anyway.

The mystery of Felipe Massa

Ah, for the days before Bahrain. It was all so simple then. Massa can’t handle F1 without traction control and Ferrari are looking to replace him ASAP. Not so fast. In the subsequent three races the Brazilian has mounted an incredible fightback under extreme pressure. Dodgy drivers don’t score 28 points from 3 races.

But I’m not a convert. I still think Massa is a sub-par driver who certainly does not deserve a Ferrari seat — at least not with an “equal number one” status. As has been pointed out by plenty of people, this year’s calendar flatters Massa. Turkey has moved to an earlier slot, meaning that most of Massa’s favourite circuits are bunched together.

In fact, this year he has done worse than last year. Last year he won in Spain whereas he could only come second behind his team mate this year. In 2007, Massa scored 37 points at the five circuits where Massa has managed to score 28 this year.

Of the Massa-friendly tracks, only Interlagos remains. Given that it is at the end of the season, Massa will probably be well out of contention by then, and may have to give way to assist Räikkönen’s championship hopes.

Monaco comes next, and Massa’s record there is not so glittering — a sole third place from last year being his best result in the principality. I might find myself eating humble pie here, but I doubt it. It will be business as usual from this Sunday.

The mystery of Lewis Hamilton

The last time I wrote about Lewis Hamilton, it was on the back of a lacklustre Bahrain weekend. Since then he has mounted something of a fightback, with strong performances in Spain and Turkey. But the Turkish Grand Prix yet again brought to the fore that issue that Hamilton appears to have with tyre management.

After the race it was announced by Bridgestone that Lewis Hamilton’s tyres were found to be at risk of internal delamination. Therefore, for safety reasons, McLaren opted to put him on a three stop strategy, thereby minimising the amount of time spent on his tyres, particularly the softs.

I have to take my hat off to Lewis Hamilton for managing to make the best of a bad situation. There seems to be some confusion over the optimality of his strategy. Clive seems to think it was advantageous to be on a three-stopper, but I don’t understand his explanation. He says, “that the three-stop plan was the only way for [McLaren] to stay with the Ferraris and it had nothing to do with tires”. But the explanation for this, as Clive himself goes on to explain, has everything to do with tyres. And if it was the only way for McLaren to go, why was Kovalainen on a two stop strategy?

Mike Gascoyne on Maurice Hamilton’s Inside Line podcast said that the two and three stop strategies are actually equally optimal at Turkey according to the simulations. But if that is so it doesn’t explain why Hamilton was the only person in the entire field to opt for the three stop strategy. If they were really equal, would not more people try it out if only to try and overtake their rivals ‘in the pitlane’?

I conclude that if Hamilton’s tyres could withstand it, he would have gone for a two-stopper. So he had a compromised strategy in Turkey. In this context, Hamilton had a stormer of a race. Even if the three-stopper was his preferred strategy, it was a great fight between him and Massa. On live timing it looked captivating as the pair swapped green and purple sectors throughout the race. And on top of it there was even a genuine overtaking move for the lead!

So hats off for the performance. But is it time for Hamilton to get his act into gear when it comes to looking after his tyres? I have been saying this for a while now. All too often now, Hamilton has been thwarted by shot tyres. You can pretty much squarely blame his championship loss on his worn-out tyres.

The debate has been whether or not Bridgestone should cater for Hamilton’s more aggressive driving style. There is something to be said for this. However, Hamilton should really learn the limitations of his equipment and be able to drive on that limit without exceeding it. Is that not what motor racing is about? For a period of time Kimi Räikkönen became known as a car-breaker because his engine went pop a few times. I think a better case can be made for Hamilton being a tyre-ruiner.

We keep on hearing from a certain man who works for ITV that Lewis Hamilton is “Senna-esque”. Senna was known for being able to make dry tyres work in wet conditions. Hamilton is struggling to make dry tyres work in dry conditions. So until he masters this, I’d like to see less of the Senna comparisons.

10 comments

« Newer posts

Older posts »