Why are the FIA bringing out their toolkits?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f2dCclIT9q8/TUUgS2L7_oI/AAAAAAAAG40/O-U57y8LQY0/s1600/start5_barc_2010.jpg

By Matt Carver

It's been two months since Sebastian Vettel was crowned as the Formula 1 world champion of 2010, after what was arguably the most enthralling and closely-fought championship in recent history. But bizarrely, the sports governing body, the FIA, have decided that it needs 'spicing up' with a whole raft of new technical regulations.

Even without these supposed enhancements, the setup for the 2011 season looks stronger than ever. The live TV broadcasts will now be in High Definition, there will be five former world champions on the gird, the teams are closely matched, and worldwide viewing figures are very strong. So this begs the obvious question: If it's not broken, why are the FIA bringing out their toolkits?

The answer can be found in a simple, four-syllable word that sparks a lot of debate: Overtaking.

The Return of KERS

For 2011, the Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) will again be available to all the teams, after its banishment for 2010 following an uninspiring implementation in the previous season. For those unfamiliar with the concept, a KERS unit is essentially just a large battery which harnesses a reserve of energy from heavy braking. This energy can then be fed though the drive train at the press of a button for an 80bhp boost for several seconds per lap.

It was originally intended as a 'push-to-pass' button to aid overtaking, but the unit itself was heavy and had a strong destabilizing effect. The cars that were fitted with KERS were more unstable and thus slower for the majority of a lap, but had the extra muscle on the long straights. So it quickly became more of an overtaking deterrent than an aid, and there is no reason to believe that it will be any different next season.

The Controversial Moveable Wings

The big concern for next season is the introduction of moveable wings, which will allow a chasing car to greatly reduce its aerodynamic drag, allowing for greater top speed, but only when closely following a competitor. This is hugely controversial, for the simple reason that it hands an artificial advantage to the chasing car, effectively handicapping the leading car for having superior track position. The problem here is that it appears to violate a fundamental rule of fair racing. Surely you can't artificially penalize a driver for having track position just to make it more entertaining. This is no different from telling Usain Bolt that whoever wins the silver medal is now allowed to use performance enhancing drungs, but only until he starts winning, then he will be back on the protein 'shakes so that it doesn't get boring.

The Nightmare Scenario

Let's take Spa for example, the much-loved host venue for the Belgian Grand Prix. There is always plenty of overtaking at Spa, mainly due to the layout of the first few turns. The tricky first hairpin leads uphill through the staggeringly fast Eau Rouge bend, onto a lengthy straight, leading down to a tight right hander. It's hard to see how any driver could sufficiently defend their position through this section against a competitor who has artificially increased top speed. This could lead to the nightmare scenario; A driver with a narrow lead may decide to deliberately concede position before starting the final lap, as the advantage of the movable wing could be more beneficial than having track position. This would be a farce in every sense of the word, and could damage the sport's competitive integrity.

There can be no doubt that on some occasions, overtaking in F1 can become almost impossible. In Hungary last year, Vettel was forced to spend more than twenty laps simply staring at the back of Fernando Alonso's Ferrari, despite being significantly faster. Alonso's championship hopes eventually faded as he spent the last 40 minutes of the season finale waiting in vain for Vitaly Petrov to plough his Renault into the Abu Dhabi tyre wall. But on other occasions, the wheel-to-wheel action was spectacular. In Turkey, The two Mclarens where bumping wheels for the lead at turn one, just a few minutes after the Red Bulls were bashing each other into the scenery. Robert Kubica provided plenty of excitement whilst scything through half the field in Singapore, and the Japanese fans at Suzuka were amply entertained by Kamui Kobayashi flinging his BMW Sauber past anyone and everyone at the hairpin.

Surely this should lead us to one inevitable conclusion. It is the layout of certain circuits that appears to be curtailing the action. Only time will tell if alterations to the cars themselves will have the desired effect.


This original article "Formula 1's Risky New Regulations" is written by Matt Carver who is a Contributing Writer at Suite101.

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/F1InsightAFormula1Blog/~3/xTX-uZVXEhI/why-are-fia-bringing-out-their-toolkits.html

Clemar Bucci Ronnie Bucknum Ivor Bueb Sebastien Buemi Luiz Bueno

McLaren drivers out of title race


Is it now a three-way battle for the title? © Getty Images
Fernando Alonso is still the driver in the best position to win the drivers’ title according to the Daily Telegraph’s Tom Cary.
“Focus and concentration will be of paramount importance and there is none stronger in this regard than Ferrari’s Fernando Alonso.”
The Guardian’s Oliver Owen thinks that it is Mark Webber’s title to lose now, and that this may be the Australian’s last realistic chance of winning the title.
“He has driven beautifully. Monaco and Silverstone spring to mind. He has been an uncompromising racer, not giving Vettel or Lewis Hamilton an inch in Turkey and Singapore respectively. Most importantly, he has largely avoided the bouts of brain fade that can wreck a season – his on-track hooning in Melbourne when racing Hamilton being the only exception. But there is a feeling that for Webber it is now or never, that a chance of a tilt at the title may never come again. He is certainly driving as if that is the case and that has been his strength.”
According to The Mirror’s Byron Young, both McLaren drivers are now out of the title hunt after their fourth and fifth place finishes in Suzuka.
“McLaren's title hopes died yesterday in a weekend from Hell at Suzuka. Jenson Button and Lewis Hamilton finished fourth and fifth in a Japanese Grand Prix they had to win to have the remotest chance of keeping their title bid alive."
The Sun’s Michael Spearman was of the same opinion, saying “Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button's title hopes were in tatters after a shocker in Japan.”

Source: http://blogs.espnf1.com/paperroundf1/archives/2010/10/mclaren_drivers_out_of_title_r_1.php

Lucien Bianchi Gino Bianco Hans Binder Clemente Biondetti Pablo Birger

Red Bull set to dominate?

To some, the decision of Red Bull and Ferrari to pull out of the Formula 1 Teams' Association, the umbrella group that represents the teams' interests, could look innocuous enough. In reality it could have far-reaching consequences.

The F1 teams have put a brave public face on it, but behind the scenes there are serious concerns that it could lead to a period of Red Bull domination about which their rivals can do little.

The move by two of F1's most powerful teams was provoked by continuing distrust about whether all of the competitors were adhering to the terms of a document called the Resource Restriction Agreement.

The RRA sets out limits on the amount of staff, external spend and aerodynamic research teams can employ and covers work on the design of the car - with drivers' salaries, marketing and engines excluded.

Sebastian Vettel

World Champion Sebastian Vettel's (left) team Red Bull and Michael Schumacher's (right) former team Ferrari announced that they have quit the Formula One Teams Association (Fota). PHOTO: Getty

It is not a budget cap per se, but it does have the effect of keeping costs under control, to the point that the biggest budgets have dropped from in the region of £300m in 2008 to an estimated £150-200m in 2011.

To cite just one example, the RRA limits the amount of hours a team can dedicate to wind-tunnel testing - a key way of honing an F1 car's aerodynamics, the single biggest performance differentiator.

And the more wind-tunnel hours you do, the less simulation of aerodynamics on a computer is allowed (and vice versa).

Because there is only so much of this work that a team can do, there is only so much money they can spend.

The problem that has arisen is that some of the teams - led by Ferrari and Mercedes - believe Red Bull have been exceeding these limits since 2010, the first of their two consecutive title-winning years.

Red Bull insist they have always operated within the RRA - and they counter their rivals' accusations by pointing out that it is easier for an F1 team allied to a car company (as Ferrari, Mercedes and McLaren all are) to hide extra work than it is for one that operates in isolation.

A year's worth of talks to try to reach a compromise agreement with which everyone is happy have come to nothing, leading to a situation where Ferrari and Red Bull have run out of patience. They signalled their intention to quit Fota late on Friday - although they have to give two months' notice.

Ferrari's statement was long and detailed, talking about their reluctance at a "difficult decision", their ongoing commitment to cost-reduction and other changes in F1, and emphasising their own central role in Fota since it was set up in 2008.

Red Bull's ran to only two sentences: "Red Bull Racing can confirm it has served notice to withdraw from Fota. The team will remain committed to finding a solution regarding cost saving in Formula 1."

This in itself has led to more suspicion.

It is clear, more than one insider has said, why Ferrari pulled out of Fota - if the organisation could not sort out an RRA, what was the point of it? - but Red Bull's reasoning was very different.

The implication being that the world champions did not like the RRA because they had no intention of adhering to it. Fota had become an inconvenience.

Red Bull were not available for comment.

This suspicion has been poisoning the atmosphere within F1 all year, despite attempts to reduce it.

As well as the endless meetings aimed at bringing the two warring sides together, there was an investigation in the summer by external consultants into the way the teams were detailing their use of resources.

But while Red Bull believe this effectively cleared them of wrongdoing, their accusers disagree. "The analysis showed more than one concern about what Red Bull were doing," one insider told me.

The next step, as laid out by the RRA, was for a full audit of the accounts of the team about which there were suspicions - if a certain number of teams wanted this to happen, the accused team had to agree.

But this point was never reached, and after further meetings at the season-closing Brazilian Grand Prix, Ferrari and Red Bull ran out of patience.

So what happens next? Is this the death knell for Fota? Will the departure of Ferrari and Red Bull lead to a domino effect of teams leaving the organisation?

Alternatively, will a rump stick together, recognising that there can still be strength in numbers, not least in the forthcoming negotiations with F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone over a new Concorde Agreement, the document which binds the teams, the commercial rights holder and governing body the FIA together?

That may become clearer after a Fota meeting on Tuesday.

More importantly, does this mean the end for resource restrictions in F1 - and will the sport therefore revert to the 'arms race' spending that led to the RRA in the first place?

On the face of it, the answer to that is no. The RRA is still technically in force. It is a legally binding document which lasts until at least 2012, or perhaps even 2017 - depending on whom you believe, and which version of the document you are talking about.

In theory, if Red Bull's rivals feel that they are breaking the RRA, they can sue them. If that sounds unlikely, one insider I spoke to for this article raised it as a possibility.

Equally, though, Red Bull and Ferrari are due to meet the other members of F1's big four - McLaren and Mercedes - next week to discuss resource restriction and how to move forward on it.

That hardly sounds like the actions of a group of people on the verge of legal action.

In public, everyone in F1 says they want to avoid a return to unrestricted spending.

One of the main reasons for this is that (effectively) unrestricted money is no longer available to top F1 teams - the effects of the credit crunch have reached even this notoriously expensive sport's rarefied climes.

Many of the smaller teams are living hand-to-mouth to a degree, with only the top four existing in relative comfort.

But even they have limitations on what they can spend.

McLaren are a private team who have to live within the budget they can raise from sponsorship and other commercial partnerships.

Mercedes, huge car company though it may be, has set clear limits on the amount of money its team can spend.

Even Ferrari, who 10 years ago could effectively spend what they wanted, now have to be careful with money.

But Red Bull are different, or so their rivals believe.

Team principal Christian Horner insists they have far from the biggest budget in F1 - he ranks them about third or fourth.

But his rivals raise their eyebrows at that, pointing out that Red Bull is worth billions and that the soft-drinks company is weathering the global economic downturn well by comparison with car companies and traditional corporate giants. In that sense, their rivals say, they really can spend what they want.

So whether founded on reality or not, and whether the accusation at its heart contains any truth, the fear at the heart of F1 is quite simple.

If Red Bull, despite the RRA, are prepared to spend what they want, as well as having the best designer in Adrian Newey and arguably the best driver in Sebastian Vettel, who can stop them dominating for years to come?

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/andrewbenson/2011/12/red_bull_set_to_dominate.html

George Connor George Constantine John Cordts David Coulthard Piers Courage

Alguersuari pays tribute to physio

Jaime Alguersuari has paid tribute to Toro Rosso physio Raniero Gianotti, who has died at the age of 46. Alguersuari said that the Italian was “the person who I have loved and who has loved me the most in Formula … Continue reading

Source: http://adamcooperf1.com/2012/01/09/alguersuari-pays-tribute-to-physio/

Ernesto Brambilla Vittorio Brambilla Toni Branca Gianfranco Brancatelli Eric Brandon

Ferrari – Things have to change

Ferrari have been speaking about the changes they will be making for the 2012 Formula 1 season. In recent times, they have struggled to match Ferrari and McLaren for success and they want this to change from now on. Referring to the effort they are putting in, team boss Stefano Domenicali said: “The situation shouldn’t be [...]

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Formula1Fancast/~3/LnrohYobz4I/ferrari-things-have-to-change

JeanChristophe Boullion Sebastien Bourdais Thierry Boutsen Johnny Boyd David Brabham

Massa threatened with jail over team orders


© Getty Images
Brazil’s F1 fever may have overstepped the mark after a local prosecutor threatened Felipe Massa with a six-year jail term if he “defrauds” the sporting public by letting Ferrari team-mate Fernando Alonso past at Sunday’s grand prix. The story, reported by a local paper and picked up by the Daily Telegraph, is the latest of several anti-Massa reports to emerge from his home country since the team orders controversy at the German Grand Prix earlier this year. The Daily Telegraph's Tom Cary reckons that Massa simply isn't living up to his home crowd's high expectations.
“A public raised on a diet of Emerson Fittipaldi, Nelson Piquet and Ayrton Senna were simply appalled and saddened in equal measure by Massa’s apparent lack of ambition.”

Source: http://blogs.espnf1.com/paperroundf1/archives/2010/11/massa_threatened_with_jail_ove.php

Eric Bernard Enrique Bernoldi Enrico Bertaggia Tony Bettenhausen Mike Beuttler