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

Archive: McLaren

Is Alonso now the championship favourite?

28 September 2010 00:17

Categories: *, Formula 1

All of a sudden, the complexion of the championship has changed. Just a few races ago, Fernando Alonso was one of the outsiders in the championship. As has been widely noted, when he declared himself capable of winning the championship at Silverstone a few races ago, his remarks were met with scepticism. He was, after all, a relatively distant fifth; 47 points away from the lead.

Now, after a Monza masterclass and a Singapore showcase, the Fernando-Ferrari package looks formidable. Alonso has the momentum, and has shot up into second place in the championship.

This isn’t just back-to-back wins. This is back-to-back wins on two circuits that are polar opposites of each other. Monza is a true low-downforce, high speed challenge. That was supposed to favour McLaren. Singapore is a circuit where teams apparently run with more downforce than they do in Monaco. That was supposed to favour Red Bull. Instead, Fernando Alonso was majestic in his Ferrari at both of these radically different circuits.

Much has been made of the fact that Alonso can also fully rely on the support of his team mate Felipe Massa, while both rival teams have both their drivers battling each other as well. But Alonso does not even need this support. Massa played no role in Alonso’s victory at Monza, and he wasn’t even in a position to assist in Singapore. Alonso is supreme — and that is what is making him the main contender now.

It is all the more amazing when you consider just how many mistakes Alonso was making earlier on in the season. It really was a case of unfulfilled potential at the midway point. There was the first corner incident at Melbourne. The jump start in China. The hugely costly practice crash at Monaco. Getting bogged down behind Petrov in Turkey. Botched overtaking attempts on Kubica and Liuzzi at Silverstone.

Ferrari were not having a great time either. The car has not always been competitive. Not so long ago Alonso was making negative comments about the pace of development at Ferrari, noting that it was much more relentless when he was at McLaren. Then there was the distraction of the team orders fiasco and the fallout that ensued. Yet now, Alonso is in the pound seats for the Championship.

Red Bull’s challenge

Red Bull have, all in all, looked like the strongest team all season. And although much has been made of their calamities, they have generally done a good job. More is made of their inability to convert front row starts into wins than is necessary. When there are 23 cars behind you, it is easy peasy for one or two of them to usurp you.

What is more notable is that Red Bull have had so many front row starts when the others just haven’t. And while the victories may have been a bit more evenly shared out, Red Bull have still be consistently up there, challenging all the way through the season while both Ferrari and McLaren have had peaks and troughs. Moreover, it has been abundantly clear that Red Bull have been innovating heavily throughout the season.

The fact is that Red Bull currently lead both championships. And while they have lost a bit of momentum recently, they are still the team that have the least to do in the remaining four (or three) races.

Has the tide turned against Red Bull? In one sense, no. Monza was always going to be their weakest circuit of the year — yet they still managed to finish 4th and 6th in the race. Not great, but not too bad either.

Red Bull’s biggest problem is not that they have lost momentum. They are still a formidable force, whether or not they have had to compromise on flexible wings and floors. No; Red Bull’s biggest problem is completely out of their hands.

McLaren on the back foot

Red Bull have to deal with the fact that essentially McLaren have faded into the background of the championship race. This means that the rewards are being split three ways rather than five. If Red Bull have a problem, it is Alonso who capitalises — full stop. Earlier in the season, it could have been either Alonso, Hamilton or Button. Not now that McLaren have essentially faded from view.

Spa and Monza were crunch races for McLaren, as the last two circuits in the calendar that truly suited their car. Neither race was perfect. Spa was not too worrying — Hamilton took a dominant win in arguably his most majestic display to date. Button was running well until his accident with Vettel.

But Monza must have rung alarm bells. Seemingly distracted by the decision over whether to run the F-duct, McLaren lost their grasp. Hamilton was rattled after his set-up disadvantaged him during qualifying. The team had to rely on Jenson Button to do the business at the front.

The problem is that Button has not looked like he has had the fire in his belly since some point in the season — maybe around Turkey? Button started the season with two victories in the first four races, but has not looked like winning since then.

Monza was a good chance. But in reality, it was clear all race long that Alonso has the superior pace, and there was nothing Button could do to avoid ceding the lead.

Hamilton, meanwhile, knocked himself out on lap one by getting involved in a needless accident — a scenario that was repeated in Singapore. While Alonso has been dominant and mesmerising, Hamilton has returned to his clumsy ways, misjudging a move for two races in a row. He has thrown away a shedload of points.

You have to question Hamilton’s mental state as we approach the end of the season. He was supposed to have shaken off these clumsy errors, but now he has only himself to blame for finding himself on the back foot.

Most worrying of all from McLaren’s standpoint is the fact that it doesn’t look like they know what to do to turn the tide. Since the failed upgrade package of Silverstone, McLaren have not been on great form.

It looks like Ferrari have won the development battle. The failure of experimental gearbox parts on Massa’s car in Singapore demonstrates that they are pushing very hard towards the end of the season. No wonder that all of his rivals now view Fernando Alonso as their number one threat.

3 comments

F1 2010 mid-season rankings — part 2

22 July 2010 10:09

Categories: Formula 1

You can read part 1 of my mid-season rankings, where I assess the bottom half of the grid.

6. Force India

Force India have come along way in the past couple of years. From being perennial tail-enders, they are now solid midfield runners and can regularly expect to beat the likes of Williams, BMW Sauber and Toro Rosso. Vijay Mallya has succeeded where Alex Schnaider and Spyker failed.

A question mark remains over the driver lineup. I still find Adrian Sutil rather unimpressive. In his fourth season, surely we should be seeing more. And Vitantonio Liuzzi, while showing flashes of excellence, has generally failed to live up to expectations.

Force India also need to be careful that their progress up the grid does not come to a shuddering halt, with a mass exodus of their technical team having occurred this year. James Key has moved to assist in Sauber’s resurrection, while Mike Gascoyne has poached some of his ex-Force India colleagues to join him at Lotus. Looking at the five teams that are ahead of Force India in the Constructors’ Championship, it is difficult to see how they can make much more progress.

5. Mercedes

It hasn’t quite gone to plan for Mercedes. Seemingly fed up with McLaren, the manufacturer opted to buy the Brawn team that was so stunningly successful last season. Then, in a crass marketing stunt, they signed Michael Schumacher with much fanfare. Well, it’s all been a bit of a damp squib.

The car has not met up to expectations, and I have heard rumours that Ross Brawn is not too happy with the way Mercedes run the show (who knows if there is truth in that though).

For my money, Mercedes must have the worst driver line-up with the possible exception of Sauber. Nico Rosberg is relatively well rated. But let us face it — we all know there is still a question mark as to how good he really is. Meanwhile, it was clear to me from the very start that Michael Schumacher would be rusty, and his performances has fully justified my view.

It would have been much better for both Nico Rosberg and Michael Schumacher if a more sensible driver was chosen. Schumacher could have kept his dignity in retirement; Rosberg could have learnt from a genuinely solid and reliable barometer. Someone like Nick Heidfeld, perhaps. Or, you know, Jenson Button or Rubens Barrichello…

4. Ferrari

It has similarly come apart for Ferrari. Although they showed promise at the start of the season, with a win in Bahrain (even if they didn’t quite have the outright pace). But since then the story has been one of a slow but steady decline as the season has progressed, as Ferrari have failed to keep up the pace of development, and as the Championship has increasingly focussed on Red Bull and McLaren whose cars are far superior.

The drivers have to take their fair share of the blame too. Fernando Alonso has been making many more mistakes than usual, and he is not as enjoyable to watch as he used to be. A worrying development for the person I consider to be the best driver of the past decade. Meanwhile, after a relatively bright start in Bahrain, Felipe Massa has seemed off-colour for most of the season.

3. Renault

They may be fifth in the Constructors’ Championship, and, yes, they have the fifth fastest car. But I have elevated Renault in my rankings because it is an astonishing comeback.

It is incredible to think that just a month ago, the Renault F1 Team was mired in the quite unsavoury scandal that became known as ‘crashgate’. Having lost its sponsors and its star driver in addition to its team principal and technical director, you would expect 2010 to be a rebuilding year for Renault.

But the rebuild was swift. The team has rebranded to focus on its racing heritage, feeling less like the team that descended from Benetton. It has a steady new boss in the shape of Eric Boullier, who I think is doing a fantastic job. And its new star driver, Robert Kubica, looks set to become the team’s long-term centrepiece.

Kubica is doing really well just now and seems happy — by his standards at least! Vitaly Petrov is a fair bit off his pace, but he has not disgraced himself in my view. It should be remembered that Petrov is the only rookie among even the midfield teams, never mind front-running teams — so he should be given a bit of room to breathe and develop.

2. Red Bull

Red Bull should be number 1 on this list. This ought to be their year. They came out this season with easily the fastest car. Their car is still easily the fastest car. They have two of the best drivers on the grid.

Unfortunately, the last little bit — professionalism, cohesion, restraint — that takes all these ingredients and turns an operation into a championship winning Formula 1 team is missing. If it isn’t some kind of reliability problem, it is a strategy goof, or the mother of all mismanagements.

Just now, Red Bull remind me of where McLaren were at a few years ago. Unable to control team mates. Bizarre strategy calls. Constantly walking into traps that they set up for themselves. Somehow conspiring to hoof it over the bar in the face of an open goal.

The statistics illustrate it well. Out of ten races, Red Bull have had nine pole positions, but have had just five wins. They lag behind McLaren in both championships. For a team that has what is probably comfortably the quickest car, Red Bull have managed to immensely stuff it up so far.

1. McLaren

McLaren have not been without their troubles this season. At the start of the season, it was clear that their car was not as quick as they would have liked. But the way they are dealing with it is the opposite to Red Bull, and that signals to me that they have learnt a lot from their difficult period in the mid-2000s.

As with Ferrari, they were scuppered by poor tactics during qualifying for the Malaysian Grand Prix, severely compromising their race. Yet they still salvaged a fair points haul. Jenson Button did the same again at Silverstone a couple of weeks ago. Even when it goes wrong, McLaren sort it and get it right. McLaren is now more agile and astute in its strategy calls than it was two or three years ago.

Martin Whitmarsh has done an outstanding job to plug the few gaps in McLaren’s abilities that Ron Dennis left behind. Now McLaren are a formidable force that should never be underestimated.

McLaren’s pace of development alone makes them stand head and shoulders above the rest. The high-profile failure of their new blown diffuser at Silverstone is only really notable because it is so unusual for a new McLaren part to go wrong. Other teams have this sort of difficulty all the time. Witness the various botched attempts to adopt the F-duct, another part of the McLaren package that makes it the best of 2010 so far.

Then there are the drivers, who are both on song. Despite various figures constantly trying to goad them into a bloody deathmatch, they appear to get on like a house on fire.

Witness the difference between the McLaren team mates and their Red Bull counterparts at Turkey. McLaren’s drivers had a misunderstanding, but instead of blabbing to the media or making silly hand gestures, the drivers sorted it out with a quick chat after the race. Very professional. Lewis Hamilton’s and Jenson Button’s approach is a very healthy approach to racing all round.

That is what makes them championship winners, and today’s championship leaders. That is why McLaren are still the best team, even when they don’t necessarily have the best car.

Comments closed

Coulthard’s comments are anti-racing

3 July 2010 00:17

Categories: *, Formula 1

I suppose it is inevitable, but I dislike the blame game that has gone on since the horrendous crash between Mark Webber and Heikki Kovalainen during the European Grand Prix last week. The most important thing after an incident like that is to take stock. I was in awe of the extremely high safety standards demonstrated during that crash, but lessons need to be learned. Fingers don’t need to be pointed.

For me, it was a racing incident, in which both drivers could share a portion of the blame. Heikki Kovalainen probably tried to defend more than was really justified against a hugely superior car. Meanwhile, Mark Webber tried to catch a bit more slipstream than was necessary. Both made a mistake, and the result was that both were punished. That’s racing.

But BBC pundit and Red Bull Racing “Ambassador” David Coulthard was among the first to start pointing fingers, during his post-race analysis on the BBC. The comments about “A-class” and “B-class” teams that were being bandied about on the BBC were rather crass in my view.

Given that he is paid by Red Bull, David Coulthard’s comments perhaps shouldn’t have been surprising. For him, Heikki Kovalainen should have stepped aside, rolled out the red carpet, and allowed the Red Bull car to pass without a fight.

In fairness, it is not just his link to Red Bull that might have made him say this. David Coulthard has a history of suggesting that the “slower” car, should move over for the “faster” car. I have never forgotten his whining following the 2001 Monaco Grand Prix, when he was unable to overtake Enrique Bernoldi whom he was racing for position. You still hear him moan about it from time to time.

The idea that, when cars are racing for position, the car behind needs to overtake the car in front, has always appeared to evade Coulthard’s grasp. Formula 1 should award the drivers with the most skill, not just the engineers who can design and build the fastest cars. Overtaking is exciting because it is a skill, and if drivers of “slower” cars were to just stand aside, viewers would soon flock to another sport.

Yesterday David Coulthard went further still, blaming the crash on the slower speed of Heikki Kovalainen’s Lotus car. As Keith Collantine points out, the difference in speed is hardly alarming. Certainly, by historical standards, the pace of the new teams is actually very quick.

There has been a lot of talk about the reintroduction of the 107% rule, coming next season. Had the rule been in place for this season, the new teams would only have been caught out a handful of times. But in the mid 1990s it was a fairly regular occurrence for a Forti, Minardi or a Tyrrell to fail to qualify. Before then, to have cars that were several seconds off the pace was frankly the norm.

The only reason a car 2.5 seconds off the pace is considered “too slow” these days is because the standards in F1 have greatly increased over the past five or ten years. Of course there is a reason why chronically slow cars should not be allowed to race. But when we are talking about teams that are on the margin of 107%, the issue seems overblown. It’s not as if the Hispania cars are performing like the Mastercard Lola.

I get the feeling that David Coulthard thinks only “fast” cars and “fast” drivers should be allowed in F1. Of course, Formula 1 is an elite sport. But every single one of the cars on the grid this year is an elite car. The new teams (the first real new teams since 2002) have done an incredible job to be so close to the pace so quickly. Hispania is an elite team, as are Virgin and Lotus.

Of course, David Coulthard had the advantage of always racing for “fast” teams in F1. His F1 career began at Williams when the team was reaching the height of its mid-1990s dominance. When he moved to McLaren, they were never terribly far off the pace. Even when he raced for Red Bull, they weren’t exactly backmarkers.

Maybe if he had done a stint with a smaller, less well-resourced team, he would have a bit more sympathy for the tailenders that are every bit as important to F1 as the front runners.

3 comments

Is it time to tear up the FIA rule book?

29 June 2010 23:04

Categories: *, Formula 1

In terms of racing, this year’s race at the Valencia Street Circuit was easily the most successful of the three that have been held so far. Although arguably it was mostly as a result of the shake-up that occurred after Mark Webber’s horrendous accident with Heikki Kovalainen — which we really do not like to see — the fact is that the spectacle was quite good. The start and the first few laps certainly had a lot going on, even before Webber’s crash.

Unfortunately, as often happens in Formula 1, the on-track events have been overshadowed by the inept management of the sport behind the scenes. The stewarding in Valencia was a complete shambles, making a mockery of the sport.

As if the shambolic nature of the stewarding wasn’t enough, the issue has been compounded by Ferrari’s over-the-top reaction. Yes, they have a point. They were hard done by. The FIA systems should have worked better. But, in the words of a former Scottish First Minister, it was more of a cock-up than a conspiracy.

It is unusual for Ferrari to jump up and down and complain about unfair treatment at the hands of the FIA. This is the team that brought us farcical events like Austria 2002 and the “manufactured dead heat” at Indianapolis the same year — yet now they complain about manipulated race results. Never mind, I suppose eight years have passed…

The stewarding problem wasn’t solved after all

Of course, one of the biggest changes in the way the sport is run this year (apart from the change of FIA President) has been the introduction of an ex-driver to advise the stewards. At first it seemed to be working — the stewards were staying quiet, keeping out of matters they didn’t need to be involved in, and generally doing a good job.

Unfortunately, it must just have been a run of good luck, because the past few races have seen a return to the bad old days of shambolic stewarding and controversial conclusions. They still need to be doing a better job.

Getting the involvement of former drivers is a welcome move. But it is only a sticking plaster when the problems with the way the sport is run are so deep. For the time being, the drivers are a piece of decorative tinsel.

It is unfortunate for them that, due to their high profile, the spotlight is unfairly focussed on the drivers. We have often seen, during the race coverage produced by FOM, pictures of the driver in the stewards’ room. In Valencia it was Heinz-Harald Frentzen. But no-one is interested in the other three stewards.

That is a shame because it would be useful to know more. I happened to recognise the name of one of the other stewards at Valencia. Radovan Novak was the controversial person who, in 2008, claimed that McLaren were “responsible” for the Max Mosley sex scandal.

Mr Novak was also reported to have spoken against the prospect of Jean Todt becoming FIA President. On paper, he doesn’t seem like the sort of person who might like to be part of a Jean Todt-led conspiracy in favour of McLaren. Then again, maybe things change easily when the new boss enters his office.

The real problem: The rules are too complex

Mike Gascoyne hit the nail bang on the head:

I think since we started changing the safety car rules, every time you change something you get all these scenarios thrown up, and I think it is just that.

Charlie [Whiting, FIA race director] is trying to do the job as he sees it, calls it as he sees it, and he has as difficult a job as everyone. I think it is just one of those things.

The real issue is that the rules of Formula 1 are too complex. As such, the regulations are filled with loopholes within grey areas. This makes the sport difficult to follow and impossible to fairly officiate.

In recent years, the Safety Car rules have become particularly complex. The FIA has struggled to get this quite right, with the result being ad-hoc changes tacked on to amendments. It reminds me a lot of the constant tinkering the FIA made to the qualifying format in the mid-noughties until it finally settled on the current knockout system.

Already this year, following the farcical finish to the Monaco Grand Prix, a badly written rule has been hastily re-written. It looks like more clarifications will have to come after nine drivers were ended up unintentionally breaking the letter of the law after the Safety Car was deployed towards the end of the lap for many drivers.

On this week’s Radio 5 Live Chequered Flag podcast, Lewis Hamilton described the confusion that the current Safety Car rules create. You can hear it from around 9:40 in:

When the Safety Car comes out, you get all these beeps in your ear, and you get all this different information on your dashboard and lights flashing at you. And you’ve got to have a certain time between the Safety Car 1 line and the Safety Car 2 line. Then between the two Safety Car lines you can go fast. It’s just all so confusing.

In Valencia, the stewards had to make sure they made the right decision. But this meant taking the time to find the evidence and come to a decision in the proper way, which lessened the impact of the penalty. Exactly the same thing happened quite memorably to Nico Rosberg during the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix.

While it’s understandable that the stewards would want to get their decision right, Formula 1 now needs to look urgently at ways of making these decisions more quickly and more efficiently. Formula 1 is a sport with a lot of technology at its finger tips.

There are lots of cameras (the FIA has access to more than we ever see on television), and GPS data, team radio recordings, telemetry and timing systems. Not all of this can be analysed on the spot, but a lot of it can. This ought to be utilised much more.

The words “will be investigated after the race” — which used to be almost unheard of but is now a regular occurrence — should only be used in extreme circumstances. Television viewers and fans at the racetrack need to have confidence that what they have seen play out on the track is the real result.

Most of all, there needs to be a mass simplification of the F1 rules in order to avoid as much this as much as possible. F1 is a complex sport, and it is clearly not easy to regulate. But action needs to be taken, because right now the FIA rule book is more useful as a doorstop than a way to effectively run a motor race.

I also recommend the following posts on this topic:

4 comments

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

« Newer posts

Older posts »