The Risk of Innovation

Tyrrell 019, photo by Sibo

F1 has a lot of nuance to it whether you are talking strategies, driving styles, off track politics, or technical development; and that technical development is mind blowing ; it is an arms race for gaining time. More and more the technical side of F1 has been about aerodynamics. Teams spend vast sums of money to improve car performance in this area. Even items that are not logically geared towards the aerodynamic performance, are in fact geared towards the aerodynamic performance of the car.

Since work on other components like engine development have virtually been eliminated, aerodynamic performance is the be all-end all of F1 performance. Hence, a very large factor in Red Bull's current dominance has been their iconoclast designer and renown  aerodynamist, Adrian Newey.  With engine development frozen, DRS and KERS still in their infancy, spec tires, you have to have top notch aero. This chase has lead to some teams to some interesting concepts, some successful, others not so successful. However, it is the price of looking to be innovative and chase those ever elusive tenths of seconds. We have seen these innovations take root, or be banned from competition or just flop.

Innovation can pay off or it can cost you. When we think of the most recent noteworthy technical innovation, the exhaust blown diffuser, it is not widely talked about that this innovation was pioneered in 1983 by Renault and Jean Claude Migeot. It became the standard in F1, then fell out of favor completely a decade ago with the advent and development of periscope exhausts, before being revived by Adrian Newey in an effort to maximize the downforce generated under the car; the place where most downforce is generated. A huge payoff for Red Bull.  

Then there is the story of Tyrrell (the genesis of the current Mercedes team), a championship winning team with a history of innovation. Tyrrell is probably most remembered for their 6-wheeled F1 car, the P34. However, they had several innovations that have carried over to contemporary F1. Generally speaking, they were all aimed at aerodynamic performance because they were lacking in the areas where the bigger teams dominated: engines and horsepower.

Tyrrell 025, photo by Rainer Nyberg

Before the days of engine freezes and standard engine designs you could overcome some aerodynamic deficiencies via horsepower, and you could be rather competitive this way. However if you did not have a good engine, you had to look towards other avenues to increase your performance...i.e. aerodynamics. In 1990, Tyrell and legendary Harvey Postlethwaite (whom Newey worked for) and Jean Claude Migeot introduce the world of F1 to raised noses, a concept that has been the standard design to varying degrees since 1996. Some of the other innovations from Tyrrell: aerodynamically shaped wishbones (again the concept is standard) in 1996. the notoriously ugly yet effective X wings in 1997 (banned by the FIA in 1998). The payoff was for other teams following the innovations. The Tyrrell name disappeared from F1 after they were purchased by British American Tobacco.

Williams FW26, photo by BMW AG

In 2004, Williams introduced a walrus-nose shaped F1 car, the FW26. This was a different and radical take on the raise nosed concept. The car was an acquired taste visually, but the aim was the same: achieve more airflow to the underside of the car to gain that aerodynamic advantage. However, Williams had what teams like Tyrell did not have, one of the best engines of the V10 era, the P84. Williams and driver Juan Pablo Montoya were favorites for the title. However, the design turned out to be a flop. The concept proved to be more heavy then anticipated, which led to instability and to car setup issues. They went with a more conventional design later in the 2004 which culminated in the team's sole victory at the end of the season. Williams took a risk with a innovative design after nearing winning the driver's championship with Montoya in 2003 and they failed. Williams have never been the same since. 

In late 2005, Renault introduced the Tuned Mass Damper (TMD), a movable weight in the car that helped the car perform better over bumps and keep a consistent contact with the track, improving grip and aerodynamic performance. The development of this technology helped them secure the 2005 title as well as being an important component to their 2006 championship winning car the R26.  This technology was banned in controversial fashion in 2006. However it's performance was subsequently replicated by the J damper, a standard arrangement in F1 introduced by McLaren.  

In 2010, McLaren introduced the "F-Duct" on their MP4-25. The design used a small snorkel mounted in front of the driver that channeled air through a duct in the cockpit and towards the rear wing. Changes in the pressure in the duct reduced the aerodynamic drag of the wing allowing for an extra 6 mph on a straight away, a poor man's but very ingenious DRS.  Although a legal component, it was banned for 2011. McLaren had a very competitive package but could not capitalize to a win the title. 

Now to go full circle with exhaust blown diffusers. In 2011, Renault introduced a radical front exit exhaust (FFE) on their R31. Instead of a "traditional" periscope or exiting into the diffuser, the exhaust exited below the sidepod inlets. The aim was to blow exhaust gases under the floor and around the sidepods.Where Red Bull got it right, Renault admits they go it wrong. They admit they could not really develop it as the season progressed and it was too complicated for them to consistently generate downforce at all the tracks. Renault even experimented with going to a more traditional layout (like Williams in 2004) but they could not make that work either. After a very promising 2010 season, they put a lot of effort in 2011 and came up snake eyes from a design point of view. 

Nevertheless all of this gets us to the point. Sometimes you get it right and it changes the way the sport operates and moves it forward. Sometimes you innovations get banned because it is too clever or just plain illegal. Sometimes you just get it wrong and you have a terrible and useless design. However, in it's purist form, isn't that what innovation is all about; taking risks, trying to be quicker, advance the technology? I much rather see teams try something innovative and bump up against the rules or truly make an technological advancement than the push towards standardization.   

Did Red Bull cheat?

There is growing pressure coming down on the soon to be double world constructor champions, Red Bull Racing. The issue, a recent audit by a company called Capgemini found "discrepancies" in relation to Red Bull's 2010 budget as it related to the Resources Restriction Agreement (RRA). What is the RRA? It restricts the Formula One teams in terms of staffing levels, the aerodynamic development allowed in-house, the amount of time allowed for computational fluid dynamics (CFD) work and the amount of money for sub-contractors; all aimed at reducing cost in F1. There are a number of stories dedicated to the issue (Here) and (Here).

F1 had been talking about capping budgets for several years and in 2009 under the Mosley administration the RRA came into force for implementation from 2010-2012 (restructured to run until 2017); and as soon as it did teams were looking to close loopholes, renegotiating what is covered and understand what the penalties would be if the agreement was broken. So, did they cheat? Did they break the agreement? No. It boils down to these basic elements. The same auditors that found discrepancies certified the budget of Red Bull and the 2010 budget was submitted to FOTA, something done on a monthly basis until the close of the fiscal year for the teams (according to Stefano Domenicali is the end of February 2011 for FY2010). That is it.

However, there is something more. Just as everything in F1, you push the limits. The boundaries are defined and you push where there are gray areas. When those gray areas are exposed, you clarify the boundaries. Then you push a little further into more gray areas. That is the way it works whether you are talking about double-decker diffusers, F-ducts, flexi-wings/body parts or resource agreements. F1 is quite rare these days in that the teams make the rules in concert with the FIA. So, if a team crafts a rule or agreement with the other teams and it benefits that team, so be it. Teams knew about the gray area the double diffusers posed before the 2009 season, yet some went forward with the design, others did not. This is different only in the fact that one battle is on the car design side, this one is a battle of team management. 

Moreover, this is not a new story.  Mosley in December 2010 remarked to Auto Motor Und Sport, "Red Bull asked for an [overspending] exception. If that's true, that can only mean they spent more than they were allowed, and now they're asking for the [other] teams' approval. I am interested to know how their opponents are going to react."  Some would say, where there is smoke there is fire. In this instance, it is where there is smoke there is smoke. I do not expect to have a "Crash-gate" type revelation or a Worldcom accounting scandal after almost a full season and a certified Red Bull budget. Again, these teams are dealing with a gray and ever evolving agreement. For example, something not yet completely understood and covered is how to handle the use of outside suppliers and spending on future KERS/power train development; especially as KERS and other future, more efficient powertrains come on-line. This will be the new battleground for F1 supremacy that will yield future race team customers to who can get it right.

All the teams are looking for that extra advantage that comes with being able to draw up the rules. So, keep fighting ladies and gentlemen.

Link:
Will a Budget Cap work?

Pirelli remains true to form

Pirelli, true to form in being very proactive in their return to the sport has made another call for changes. Their lastest proposal is a change in the tire regulations to reduce the waste that is generated by having to destroy unused hard compound race tires.

The proposal from Motorsport Director, Paul Hembrey to eliminate tire hoarding and not have extra unused hard sets was simple:Invert the allocation to six soft sets and five hard sets. After first free practice, take away one of the hard sets, so there were four hard sets. Then if everything played out as it has in 2011, teams did qualifying and the race with four sets of the soft tyre and then two of the hard (two of the other hard sets being used in other practices). Teams did not accept this proposal, but the drivers support the idea and Pirelli is ready to bypass it all and go straight to the FIA to impose a change.

Pirelli is very much in the right to ask for a rules change in a sport where cost reduction has been king and in a sport where they are pushing for hybrid technology, smaller capacity engines, lessening the sport's carbon footprint and so on. It seems nonsensical that Pirelli produces tires, brings them to the race, mounts the tires, and destroys unused tires after the race. Hembrey has been strong and succinct in his statements. "Clearly if we do nothing it is slightly absurd, if I am perfectly honest, to go ahead another year and just carry tyres around the world we know we are not going to use."

With the amount of technology, simulation work, supercomputing power I got an idea that puts added dimension and pressure to the teams. Just as Pirelli submits what tire compounds they are bringing to the race weeks in advance, teams should be required to preselect compounds for the race on similar notification schedule. However, teams can choose what their compound allocation was for those races. For example, Team A can choose to have five soft sets and five hard sets, Team B can choose seven soft sets and three hard sets. This way, teams can plan their qualication strategy, eliminate tire hoarding, Pirelli reduces waste as it produces tires that have been specifically requested by the teams.

 

Women, Racing and Formula One

Giovanna Amati, last woman in F1

Women racing drivers are not really a new phenomenon even though our current age of marketing and search for the "next best thing" thinking would make you believe that. It did not begin with Danica Patrick or Sarah Fisher. In motorsport in general there are a number of female drivers that have been very successful on track and not just as individual market firms.

You can look to drag racing to see the likes of Shirley Muldowney and Angelle Sampey; first class championship winners. There are plenty of people familiar with Janet Guthrie, the first woman to compete in the Indy 500 and Daytona 500; Louise Smith, one of the pioneers of early stock car racing; and sportscar ace, Lyn St. James who is tireless when talking about getting women into motorsports.  Muldowney, Gutherie and Smith are the only women in the International Motorsport Hall of Fame (no doubt that Sampey will find her way there soon).

When we talk about modern era F1 (1950 on), we can look to Maria Teresa De Filippis in 1958 as the first female racer. From there we have Lella Lombardi (1974-76) Divina Galica (1976-78) Desiré Wilson (1980) and last woman driver in F1, Giovanna Amati in 1992. Sarah Fisher had a demonstration run in a McLaren in 2002. Danica Patrick over the course of her career has had some interest in testing F1, but ended any chance of it in 2009 stating she had explored Europe before and it was not in her heart. British racer and former Champcar driver, Katherine Legge tested a Minardi (predecessor of the current Toro Rosso squad) and put in very nice times.

This brings us to the present. Last week Lotus Renault Grand Prix (LRGP) tested Spanish racer Maria de Villota at Paul Ricard Circuit in France. As there is an in-season testing ban, she used a two-year old R29 putting in reasonable lap times according to Renault. She is looking to secure a test driver with a team. However at 32, it puts her on the wrong side of the curve whether she was a man or woman. Also, there is plenty of opinion that this is just being a PR stunt to get the team in the press; there are certainly better women racers with a better resume and her results are rather poor. It is a shame that a woman race driver is still seen as a novelty to boost one's profile.

So there is a couple of questions; will we ever see women racing in F1 again? Why isn't there more women? One, if societal evolution and marketing is any guide, then yes we will see a woman in F1 again. Especially if she has the desire and the sponsorship, which is not any different when talking about male counterparts. Two, the pool of women drivers is just simply smaller than the men's pool. It is harder to find gems in a pool of 20, then it is to find in a pool of 100. And there is no guarantee that those numbers will ever be equal because women as a group might not want to go racing at the same rates men do. Our culture is still in a gender role paradigm; you do not see men being hired as professional nannies and you don't see "grid guys" standing in front of the cars on the starting grid.

Moreover, there probably still some bias against women. In the world of Internet, you still have the discussions of women are not strong enough or do not have the endurance when there is plenty of information out there that shows the opposite. Also, there are chivalrous opinions people have of wanting to "protect" women. It would not surprise me if these attitudes carry over to people in decision making capacities.

It is not that great on the engineering side or in the upper echelon of team management as well. For example, in an interview Red Bull Racing Chief Technical Officer, Adrian Newey did with F1 in Schools, the global engineering challenge for school children, he stated there were 6 female engineers of the 140 on staff. However, program like F1 in Schools is pushing towards more female engineers. It has a 35% ratio of female competitors. So, there is a larger pool being created to choose from for the future. On the management or "key personnel" side, Peter Sauber's (Sauber F1 Team) number two is CEO is Monisha Kaltenborn, HRT's Communications and Marketing Director is Maria Serrat and Stephane Samson is Head of Communications for LRGP; not that many when you scan the faces of F1 teams. However, Bernie Ecclestone is on the record that FOM could be run by a woman within the next five years; presumably after he steps down. Now that be something coming from a man that has had some chauvinistic comments over the years.

In Indycar, there are a number of female drivers on the current grid, Danica Patrick, Simona de Silvestro, Pippa Mann, Ana Beatriz.  Each of these woman have demonstrated skill that makes their spot in the series a deserved one. With the exception of Patrick, these women are all within their first couple of years in the series and de Silvestro showing some race winning talent. The test is will we see similar or increased numbers in the future. 

In addition to the efforts of women like Lyn St. James, last year the FIA established The Women & Motor Sport Commission (WMC) to promote more participation by women in all aspects of motorsport under the direction of former world rally-winning driver Michele Mouton. Earlier this year, the council and CIK-FIA launched a new initiative that will provide a young female kart Driver with the opportunity to compete in the CIK-FIA Karting Academy Trophy that will ultimately reward one girl (aged 13-15) with a funded drive in the low-cost educational formula.

Also, if there are to be more women, teams needs to get them in their driver development programs. Teams are signing up pre-teen boys and building them up over many years. One can look to the development paths of Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel as recent examples. If women participation and success rates are to increase, the same investments need to made, not just after you find out that they are eye candy you can market. We will see what the latest efforts will bring over the next several years and whether the landscape changes. Indycar has made some strides; let us see what F1 does.

The Senna Movie Experience

The Senna documentary was finally released in the Boston area and of course I had to go see it. What kind of F1 person would I be if I did not? It was a good crowd for a Friday matinee and oddly enough I was one of the younger people in the audience. There were a lot of couples and from what I can tell from the conversations a lot of supportive women coming with their significant others to take in the experience and get to know the person their partners have been blabbing about for all these years. I even briefly met a trio that drove up from Connecticut to view the film.

I will just say upfront that I really enjoyed the film. From a storytelling point of view, I liked that there was minimal narration; there was no "outside observer" telling you what was going on. The talking was mostly done by the characters through the commentary that is captured. I definitely love hearing the Senna philosophy and the use of the term "real racing". Also, I liked how Senna and Alain Prost's careers were juxtaposed when each was an older driver. Prost is seen as losing control of the situation over Senna at McLaren and complaining about it. Senna can be seen in a similar position after he moves to Williams for 1994 as he complains about the comfort level he has with the car and the certainty in which he feels Michael Schumacher and his team are using banned driver aids. Also, there was the narrative presented that Prost was the political driver and Senna was the true racer. There was a moment in the film in which Prost talks about expressly not wanting Senna at Williams in 1993 in blunt terms, but Senna giving the political answers of why he was not at Williams; a small but I think interesting observation as story telling goes.

From an artistic point of view, the archival footage in the film is epic. There were some new things I have never seen. For the most part it was TV coverage that in some instances was grainy and gritty. This made it akin to watching newsreels of the 1930's which to me is a romantic component of the film and it's historical value. Also, there was beautiful film footage that just brings you back to that era as if you are on the pit wall. Even with the quality of digital images today, I wish F1 would have something like NFL Films. It would certainly give F1 a different visual touch.

What I did not like about the film was they tended to gloss over or not mention some of his flaws and therefore it is not a balance view of the man and the story; particularly his rivalry with Alain Prost. Addressing this more clearly would have shown Senna in a more balanced light. Also, there were moments in the film that came across as victimology. Were there cases in which the FIA (at the time FISA) had questionable motives in going after Senna? Yes. Was that all the time? No. For instance, the lead up to Suzuka 1990 was basically portrayed as a conspiracy to put Senna on the dirty side of the track after winning pole position. But the reality was that the pole was on the dirty side of the track from at least 1987. I bring this example up because the issue with the pole position brought some gasps from the audience of Senna being cheated. This clouds the story and the subsquent actions Senna took in that race.

However, it must be said that writer and an executive producer Manish Pandey in an interview with F1 Fanatic, admitted error in not showing a little more of Senna's questionable moves in his rivalry with Prost and for legitimate movie making reasons, it was not completely depicted. So, although it lacked a balanced view of the rivalry it is acknowledged as such. In any case, I can accept it as it is a Senna film not a Prost film.

The film does leave the viewer with a clear sense of Senna's essence if you did not know who he was. He was one of the world's finest racing drivers and a master of rainy race conditions. Also, he was a god fearing man that was a humanitarian and Brazil's biggest advocate. It just could have been a more complete depiction that would have taken the complexity level up a notch for the causal observer. Nevertheless, seeing him and F1 of that era on the big screen is a treat even if you are not a racing fan. It is just a damn good story with complex and charasmatic characters.

The most fitting part of the experience was when the movie was over and I was leaving the theatre. I was in the midst of a thunderstorm in which the rain was coming down in buckets. I chuckled and did a double take to check for that iconic yellow helmet.

Excited for 2012 USGP and Circuit of the Americas

If everything goes according to plan, in little over a year F1 will make it's return to the United States after a 4 year absence; and I am sure it will make a big return where they do everything big, Texas. Currently there is a purpose-built circuit under construction outside of Austin, Texas and if you look at the design details, simulations, and some construction photos, it appears the track is going to be something to behold. The 3.4 mile circuit clearly pays respect and takes some cues from Silverstone's Maggotts-Becketts-Chapel sequence, Hockenheim's arena bends and Istanbul's multiple apex Turn 8. In addition, the uphill section into Turn 1 gives me some visions of the old Osterreichring. In addition to F1, the circuit will have international events like MotoGP (a real home grand prix for Colin Edwards and Ben Spies) and Australian V8 Supercars.

Although I have not gotten over the failure that was USF1, this has all the makings of a well organized and well supported grand prix and will go a long way in helping me forget USF1. The people involved from the American side of things are people of the right caliber, Founding Partners of the circuit, Red McCombs and Tavo Hellmund. Simply put these two are well positioned to help make the race a success for two reasons. One, McCombs's money and connections with media and two Hellmund's organizational experience and connections to F1 through the man himself, Bernie Ecclestone. Add it together you have money, exposure, leadership and passion for F1.

Moreover, Texas seems to be a very appropreiate venue as Austin is a youngish city with a growing economy with high technology sectors and very much into green construction; right in sync with the F1 and the FIA. Also, F1 is not short of latin drivers; according to US census info, 38% of people in Texas are of latino decent and Mexico is right next door. The Champcar/NASCAR races in the recent past in Mexico (Fundidora Park and Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez) were well supported races as was the Grand Prix of Houston in 2007 (Champcar) with a race weekend attendance of 168,000.

More than likely there will not be an American driver in F1 for 2012 but there is a Mexican, Sauber rookie Sergio Perez, who has impressed with his performances in which he has driven as if he has seen it all before; very poised, mature and quick. With Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim backing the Sauber team, there is no doubt much will be made of Perez racing just over the border in 2012.

In addition, if Ferrari team principal Stefano Domenicali is to be believed about his ideal line-up being an experienced driver paired with a talented young driver, it stands to reason that Perez (a member of Ferrari's driver development program) ends up with the legendary F1 team in 2013 when current "number 2" driver Felipe Massa's contract expires. The other Mexican F1 drivers to hold such distinction...you got it, Pedro and Ricardo Rodriguez.

Circuit of the Americas
2012 United States Grand Prix

Disillusioned...but not for that long

Over the past year plus I grew disillusioned with the path that the sport was taking. However, I continued to watch and follow the sport. What can I say, racing is like a drug. I grew further pushed away as the rules for 2011 came into force and I thought F1 has lost its true meaning; but again I can not completely get away.

As we are currently in the summer break before F1 goes to the legendary Spa-Francorchamps circuit little more than 2 weeks away, I must stop denying the reality. F1 has been pretty entertaining this year even with the domination of Red Bull's Sebastian Vettel.

The 3 biggest changes in the sport were:

1. The addition of Pirelli as the sole tire supplier in F1 replacing the bulletproof Bridgestone product.
2. Drag Reduction System or DRS, an adjustable wing flap system that reduces drag, increases straight line speed and encourages overtaking.
3. Reuse of Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems or KERS. A system in which energy is recovered during braking and stored. Think of regenerative braking that you might find on a Toyota Prius.

I always like the KERS system but poorly implemented by the FIA, I was in different to Pirelli, and thought DRS was heresy. Well, Pirelli did exactly what was asked of them by the FIA in producing a product that would wear out and have bigger difference between tire compound and DRS has allowed drivers to be in a better position to overtake, although there is room for improvement on implementation. For example, multiple DRS use zones.

These changes have allowed for more overtaking opportunities (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93181)and hence more excitement. Although I still bristle a bit at the changes F1 has made in the past few years there is no denying that it is a better viewing product.

F1 has hit on a good idea

Even the tedious and sometime uptight world of F1 gets it right sometimes and adopts good ideas. This new one is not uncommon but probably more recognized for its use in NASCAR. What is it?

The top 10 cars that make it through to the final session of qualifying to start the race on the same tires that they set their fastest Q3 time on. Although it is only a proposed change, reports are that a vote in the affirmative by the teams will be a formality.

This in my opinion opens a lot of strategic opportunities for teams across the grid particularly in the mid-field and improves the show. It also gives the top teams more to contend with. Moreover, I think the interactions between quality overtakers like Lewis Hamilton vs. the notoriously difficult to pass Mark Webber-type drivers will be fun to watch. Particularly in those instances where Webber-types have out-qualified the Hamilton-types via tire selection.

We are bound to see a lot of blocking in 2010, but also a guarantee that we will see perfectly executed Fernando Alonso type drives at Imola 2005 with the quality of drivers we have in 2010.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK2uV9ApLts

Does too young exist?

Yesterday, McLaren signed a 14 year old kart racer named Nyck de Vries for it's young driver development program. He will be managed by the father of another young driving project turned World Champion, Anthony Hamilton; who is Lewis's father.

We all remember the story of Lewis and how at the age 10, he approached then McLaren team principal Ron Dennis at an awards ceremony and told him, "I want to race for you one day" and was signed up less than three years later to their Young Driver Support Program. Clearly all that mentoring, development and talent has reaped huge benefits for Hamilton and we often see the success stories of young teen drivers that make it to the top...Sebastian Vettel, Fernando Alonso, Jamie Alguersuari and Nico Rosberg..who was one of the youngest drivers to test a F1 car at age 17 back in 2002. It is a credit to these young people that they take on a big responsibility and succeed.

However, in the back of my mind when I hear statements like the parents are fantastically supportive, I can not help to feel that is code for the parents are living vicariously through the child. I think of the Todd Marinovich types of the world that had talent, big support, but were miserable professional failures and ended up with several personal problems.

In looking at F1 and the ten youngest drivers ever to participate in a race, four of them are currently active and hold three F1 championships...Alonso, Vettel, Alguersuari and Jenson Button. The other six: Mike Thackwell participated in 5 races; Ricardo Rodriguez, the talent-rich younger brother of Pedro, died in race practice; Esteban Tuero completed in 16 races before a neck injury ended his career; Chris Amon was generally credited with being a pretty good driver and had a long career but was winless; Eddie Cheever had a long winless F1 career, but was a very successful racing driver in different series across the world and a team owner; Tarso Marques had 26 races but never had a full season in F1.

I wonder if any of those 6 drivers had more time to develop or had access to full professional development programs like today what would their legacy be.

Humanitarian Work and Formula One

I have not posted much this week as my thoughts are in Haiti after the massive earthquake. As death numbers pile up and the aid trickles in and the Haitian people fight, I thought of high profile people that give money and resources in these sorts of situations. Then, the next logical though for me was thinking about F1 drivers and their charitable giving. I am sure there are a lot of drivers that give to charity or support worthy causes that go unreported or unnoticed. So, I wanted to point out some examples of drivers really doing some public things worth noting.

After the April 2009 earthquake in Italy, F1 drivers agreed to participate actively in charity events organized by 'Abruzzo nel cuore' and to donate memorabilia to be auctioned for the Abruzzo region and that fellow Italians Jarno Trulli and Giancarlo Fisichella were leaders in this effort. In 2005, Trulli appeared in a UN World Food Program public service announcement designed to indicate the speed at which malnourished children are dying around the world and was quite active with this in 2004.

In January 2005, after the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami in December 2004, Michael Schumacher donated 10 million dollars to the victims. He actually donated quite bit in his time as it is believed he has donated some 50+ million dollars.

Fernando Alonso is an ambassador for UNICEF. UNICEF provides long-term humanitarian and developmental assistance to children and mothers in developing countries. Also, the late Ayrton Senna started an organization bearing his name, the Ayrton Senna Foundation, a charity working for the human development of Brazilian children and youth. His charity has saved millions of children from sliding into the destruction of drugs, crime and life on the streets.

Some examples, but I am sure there are many others. Feel free to share comments of other examples of F1 charitable giving.

What can race reliability tell us?

With the implementation of the in-season testing ban, standardization of parts such as the electronic control unit, engine design freezes and improved manufacturing standards and procedures, Formula One cars are more reliable then ever before. In 2009, in looking the race mechanical reliability (RMR), that is the finishing rate in relation to non-finishes due to mechanical issues, teams finished grand prix 91% of the time; a staggering rate given these are essential one off prototypes. What else can it tell us? If we look at RMR we can make some interesting connections and conclusions in addition to finding some validation in why certain decisions could have been made. Let's take Ferrari for example and their decision of hiring Fernando Alonso.

We have read all the reports and quotes from Ferrari about needing a driver that can communicate with the engineers and help develop the car in a Schumacher-like way. We can have our opinion on whether Santander had influence or Alonso will implode the team, etc. but what they say can be seen in the numbers. Since Schumacher retired, Ferrari have seen a stead decline in their RMR from 2007-2009. 91%, 89%, 85%. From 1999 to 2006, the average RMR was 92%. Average RMR in 2007, 2008 and 2009 for the grid was 85%, 90% and 91% respectively. Ferrari have been below average for the past two season in regards to reliability. How much of that is related to driver leadership, motivation, attention to detail and car development? Skills that Kimi Raikkonen and Felipe Massa do not have in abundance. However conversely we saw the results with Schumacher and these factors.

Nevertheless one can say, we are talking only a few percentage points here. What's the difference? Well, in a sports were success and failure is measured in the tenths of seconds and one failure can cost you 10 points it could mean a lot. Not to mention if you add driver errors to the equation that is more opportunity for lost points. Since 2005, on average, the title has been decided by 9 points. The math can be as convincing as the old adage: to finish first, first you must finish.

There are several things one can glean by looking at reliability. Is the team having a quality control issue, is the driver a car breaker, does that designer design fragile cars, what's a team focus? For example, McLaren had an average RMR of 78% from 1999-2006; when Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton joined it went to 100% in 2007 and has remained comfortably above the average for the F1 grid since. What led to that? Alonso, Hamilton, the rev-limit, the standard ECU that came from McLaren, a combination of all factors?

Of course, this is only a number but it helps to point you in different directions, particularly if you see any anomalies. With new teams coming on board it will be interesting to see how RMR is effected.

You can find the information here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=twRDsYJI_tt7BioaEC2ECMg&single=true&gid=0&output=html

A Motorsport Renaissance

Something that I have thought about before, but got to thinking again after Kimi Raikkonen's defection to the World Rally Championship is that we are in a driving renaissance period. We are back to the days when drivers showed off their skills frequently in other disciplines of racing similar to the days of Jim Clark Graham Hill, AJ Foyt, Dan Gurney and Mario Andretti. In addition, with this being an era of specialization, schedule conflicts, sponsorship commitments, and protection of drivers as brands, it is a wonderful thing to see the crossover.

Although it is something we have seen with a bit more frequency in NASCAR the last several years in association with the Rolex Sports Car Series, that is helped by the fact that Grand American Road Racing Association and NASCAR are very much in a co-operative partnership. As it relates to F1, where no similar partnership exists it makes it all the more satisfying and more of a spectacle that the current and recent refugees in the F1 fraternity were participating in events as active drivers.

Recent examples of this in addition to Raikkonen when they were in F1 are multiple 24 Hours of LeMans appearances from Christian Klein (1), Franck Montagny (9), and Sebastien Bourdais (7); who also has participated in the Petit LeMans, Spa 24 hours and Sebring in addition to his great Champcar resume. Current drivers that have sampled, planning to sample outings or want to sample other machinery are Hekki Kovalainen, Sebastien Vettel and Robert Kubica. Kovalainen and Vettel have participated in the Race of Champions, the only competition in the world where stars from F1, WRC, NASCAR, and sportscars compete against each other.

Drivers that I have had a personality affinity to with their 'crossover ability' are Robby Gordon, Sebastien Loeb, Valentino Rossi and Mario Andretti. Robby Gordon has always been a versatile driver and personally at the top of the list in this modern era (perhaps heresy on a F1 related site). He has driven everything from NASCAR, Champcar and Dakar. Also, he just did not participate...he has won. Most recently, this week he took a Dakar Rally stage win.

Then there is 6 time WRC champion, Sebastien Loeb. On top of dominating the WRC for nearly a decade, he has participated at the 24 Hours of LeMans twice with a best finish of 2nd in 2006. One of his co-drivers was, Franck Montagny. He has also tested F1 cars and has impressed but will probably never get to race in an actual GP.

Valentino Rossi, the 7 time MotoGP champ, has tested F1 and WRC machinery and impressed in both. Moreover, he has participated in several WRC rallies accounting very well for himself. Although, he recently turned down an offer to drive sportscars with former F1 driver Jean Alesi at the 24 hours of LeMans.

Mario Andretti, F1 World Champion, Indy 500 winner, Daytona 500 winner, 24 hours of LeMans, won races on road courses, dirt and paved ovals, drove until he was 60. What else can you say about the longevity and diversity of car that this guy has driven? He was a true master.

In looking to the future, there is some interest from USF1 for NASCAR driver Kurt Busch to make a switch, and he has not ruled that out. In any case, the future looks bright for fans that like to see drivers work their craft in different machinery. Maybe the question of who is the best driver will once again have a great meaning.

Briatore is good for F1

Every hero needs his/her archenemy, a Lex Luthor to Superman. I think Flavio Briatore is Formula One's Lex Luthor. Let's face it; Briatore is a bigger than life man, rich beyond anyone's imagination with a spotty history. He is a character and a showman in a world of automatons and corporatists. He does not need Formula One, but there he is. Sometimes you applaud, but other times you are left saying shaking your head. Either way, you are looking at what he is doing.

I felt a lifetime ban was too excessive when contrasted against Ayrton Senna's actions in 1990 at Suzuka and Michael Schumacher's actions in 1997 at Jerez. In both instances, the drivers attempted to change the outcome and intentional did something that was dangerous. Senna got away with it, Schumacher did not; but neither were threatened or received lifetime bans. Moreover, the person actually responsible for carrying out the crash in 'Crashgate', Nelson Piquet faced no sanctions after brokering a deal granting himself immunity.

There is no doubt Briatore and fellow 'conspirator' former Director of Engineering Pay Symonds needed to be punished, and by proxy Renault. If the FIA chose a one year ban against Briatore and Symonds, and a financial penalty against Renault similar to McLaren's 2007 fine of $100m in regards to corporate espionage, that would have been justice in my opinion. However, the FIA under Mosley chose to bury Briatore and absolve Renault. Personally, giving credence to the idea that Max Mosley, someone who also has plenty of his own baggage, was acting personally against Briatore.

Now that courts have judged the FIA decision to be 'irregular' and overturned the bans of Briatore and Pat Symonds with Bernie Ecclestone expressing a welcoming attitude towards Briatore, the FIA and new president Jean Todt should distance themselves from the past and focus on the future. Like keeping the sport financially viable and advance more environmentally friendly ways to participate in motorsport. Let Briatore carry his scarlet letter as he will never be a team principal again, let him manage his drivers and cook up new ideas to promote the sport; something I think he was rather good at in my opinion. You do know that Lex Luthor did become President.

Newey and Michael: Do not blame us

Two of F1's leading car designers believe they are not to blame for the lack of overtaking in the sport and think major changes to circuit design are needed to improve the show. Red Bull technical director, Adrian Newey and his Williams counterpart, Sam Michael agree that the rule changes instituted in 2009 yielded mixed results, but feel circuit design and not chassis design is the key to solving the 'overtake problem'.

"Fundamentally, I think the circuits are probably the biggest influence," Newey told Racecar Engineering magazine. "Everybody keeps conveniently forgetting about that, as it is deemed to be easier to change the cars than change the circuits."

Michael believes the switch to slick tires and reduced aerodynamic downforce last season had some positive effects, and says the disparity in the amount of overtaking at different circuits highlighted the nature of the problem.

"You've got to ask yourself, why do you go to a race such as Barcelona where no one overtakes, and then take exactly the same cars to Monza, Montreal or Hockenheim and you get lots of overtaking," he said.

"You can't keep putting all of it on the car design all of the time. Of course the car design has some responsibility for it, but if you went to every circuit and you never saw any overtaking, then you could blame it all on the car design. But clearly that's not the case, because there are places where cars do overtake."

I believe that circuits do play a role and take a similar view of Sam Michael. Both car and circuit design play a role and F1 should be tackling the issue from both ends.

I actually think that the ban on refueling will do a lot for overtaking in that tire wear will play a critical role and teams may choose to stay out during some periods to keep track position, others will pit for new tires. The difference in tire wear will put guys at different speeds, hence assisting in overtaking. We saw some of this earlier in 2009 when Bridgestone brought a bigger difference gap in the available tire compounds.

On the flip side, F1's insistence on Herman Tilke to design it's newer tracks is a bit of an annoyance. He has some good ones, Istanbul and China; even the heretical carving of Hockenheim has produced good races and side by side action. My only real condemnations are a lot of his tracks are featureless and the fact that F1 has not looked elsewhere for new, fresh ideas. Moreover, there are older circuits on the schedule that can use some changes without destroying the character of the track. The Hungaroring could use another reconfiguration and there are plans for Silverstone to get work done. In addition, some of the newer tracks could be rethought; for example, the Tilke designed Sepang and Bahrain circuits.

However for all of the discussion, an aspect not mentioned is where the races are. Here is a novel idea...go to where the great tracks are.

Ecclestone gets gold medal for lunacy

I have tried to refrain from discussing the proposed plan by FOM leader Bernie Ecclestone that instead of a points system, the world championship will be decided by awarding medals (gold, silver, bronze). However, today Eccelstone has declared that this system will be introduced in 2009.

Basically the system would award the driver's title to the driver with the most gold medals. So in 2008, Massa would have won the title because he had 6 wins to Lewis Hamilton's 5 (6 golds to 5). The premise of implementing such as system in Ecclestone's rationale is that this would help increase overtaking because there would be more incentive for a driver to go for the win.

There are multiple criticisms and problems of such a scheme. In addition there are far less radical solutions that would keep the sport's historical context relevant.

We must consider race stewards in this equation. We have had plenty of drivers in 2008 go for overtaking opportunities and be aggressive in these opportunities in addition to race starts. Their reward has been getting penalized by race stewards. If Formula One is looking to get even more politicized instituting this system would be confirmation of the sports demise. I guarantee there will be a avalanche of protests of questionable driving else the penalty system is significantly overhauled.

Moreover, what about a driver that gets a lucky win due to rain conditions and never gets near what would have been the traditional points positions? Is that win more valuble then a driver that consistently finishes 6th or 7th in inferior equipment? I don't think so.

Why does not Ecclestone propose awarding the driver that wins the race with more points or increasing the gap between 1st and 2nd place (as was the case in Formula One's past). This was the case for many years until the points system was changed to award 2nd place driver with more points and to extend points allocations to 8th instead of 6th. In my opinion the current system is fine, as it rewards consistent drivers and teams. I am much more impressed with a driver and team that can consistently do well as opposed to drivers and teams that are sporadic in the sense that they are race winners one day and finish 6th or 7th the next. Nevertheless, if the system is to change, increasing the gap is very sensible.

Former Formula One team principal Eddie Jordan believes Bernie Ecclestone's plan to replace the Formula One points system is nonsense. Moreover, Jordan railed against the system saying to BBC Radio Five Live, " The points are necessary. I was one of the team principals in the team principals' meetings who advocated that the points should go down to eighth place because one point to a team down there is as important as a win is to the likes of McLaren and Ferrari and we must never forget that. I can promise you, having been in that position, two points against no points is a huge difference. Drivers like Massa, who started at the very bottom and worked his way up, know how important those points are at the back of the field. Everybody that's involved in the financial side knows how important it is and the extraordinary excitement there is for getting a point at the back. McLaren and Ferrari are working on a budget of perhaps 250 million, and then you have other teams like Force India and Toro Rosso, who to everyone's surprise won a race this year, who would have maybe ten or eight times less budget to play with, and inferior drivers because they're learning their trade and they will come and be world champions in years to come. But they have to find their feet somewhere, and that place has to be in the smaller teams because they're the people who take the risks. He's tinkering with something that in my opinion he has lost the understanding of. He thinks people are only interested in winning the races. I'm sorry, but there's just not enough thought put into this. It should be put to one side and discussed by him and Max Mosley, and for Bernie Ecclestone to say it's coming with the full approval of all the teams, I simply don't believe it."

I am with Jordan, I simply do not believe Ecclestone's statements that teams and the FIA are backing it. If they truly want F1 to be about 2, maybe 3 teams and destroy interest in the other teams and consign F1 to a spec series with no purpose other than for the sake of its own existence (as was having 2 open wheel series in the USA) they truly are mad. Moreover, I would be curious to how the Concorde Agreement relates to such a radical change.

Historic and fundamental change in F1

In what is being described as historic changes to Formula One, the FIA and the Formula One Teams' Association (FOTA) have announced sweeping changes in the name in cost reduction. It is understood that this radical agreement was reached between FIA president Max Mosley and FOTA leaders Luca di Montezemolo and John Howett to introduce dramatic cost reductions starting in 2009. There are additional cuts in the works for 2010 and beyond.

According to autosport.com some of the changes are:

- Engine life will be increased from two to three races from 2009.

- Manufacturers must be prepared to make 25 engine units available, at a cost of 10 million Euros, to customer teams.

- There will be a further meeting between FOTA members in Brazil to determine testing kilometre limits for 2009, and an agreement in principal on the introduction of a standard Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) unit for 2010 or 2011. KERS is believed to remain open for teams to use next season.

- The sport's governing body and FOTA will meet again after the Brazilian Grand Prix to discuss measures to reduce costs related to chassis development and the continuation of the use of customer chassis in the future.

In an letter penned to the FOTA by Max Mosley yesterday, Mosley laid out the financial concerns and asked for teams' input to help make the sport sustainable. Moreover, he laid out the FIA vision of the future in which he discussed standard engines, custom and customer gearboxes, standard components of the chassis, and solicitated suggestions regarding race procedures or "the show".

It would appear that Max Mosley has cunningly struck at the moment when teams and manufacturers were most vulnerable (losing money in an economic downturn) to essentially bring Formula One back to the 1970's or to some "the Golden Era"; something Mosley made no secret of over the years. With the specifics of the radical changes to come out shortly, F1 will enter a new, old era racing. Honestly, I am not sure where this puts Formula One. On the surface, I would simply say these agreements just makes them a global open wheel NASCAR series. I am sure if F1 fans wanted NASCAR or a complete standardization of the series, they would have just watched NASCAR or the Indy Racing League (IRL). Given what fan surveys called for, I do not see this move as keeping Formula One fans interested. However, fans are a fickle bunch and it just might be the solution in making F1 more popular. I just as you, will be watching what the specifics will be.

Nevertheless, feel free to check out opinions and information on the financial crisis that led to today's announcement:
http://formulaoneamerica.blogspot.com/search/label/Business%2FTech

Economic downturn and F1 safety

In light of the economic crisis that has impacted global economies, thus impacting the economy of Formula One, the sport has to be very cautious that dramatic changes for 2009 and drastic proposals being considered does not impact safety. Most notably for 2009, Formula One is implementing a kinetic energy recovery system and dramatically reducing downforce. Now, the FIA and F1 teams are looking at more sweeping changes such as a ban on refueling and a further restriction of testing, in addition to the standardization of components ranging from engines to brakes. This technical upheaval amidst these global conditions is bringing up eery feelings of 1994.

What occurred in 1994? Formula One saw itself under threat by North American open-wheel series, CART or Championship Auto Racing Team (preceding governing body to Champcar). This is series closely affiliated with the Indianapolis 500. The series was growing in world wide popularity and was seen as a real contest between drivers instead of the technological and spending competition between cars that was F1. 1993 was seen as the zenith of Formula One technology and drivers were scientist in race suits. Many claimed that F1 was so advanced and the cars were so easy to drive, any slouch could win provided he had the car.

In response, the FIA and Formula One enacted major changes for the 1994 season. Cars were stripped of many aids such as launch control, traction control, ABS, power brakes, fly-by-wire throttles and active suspension. Also, they more rigorously employed the safety car and re-instituted refueling.

During the 1994 pre-season, 3-time F1 champion Ayrton Senna remarked, "it's going to be a season with lots of accidents, and I'll risk saying we'll be lucky if something really serious doesn't happen. It was a great error to remove the electronics in the cars. The cars are very fast and difficult to drive;" and indeed the cars were difficult to drive. Formula One suffered a rash of testing and racing accidents: Jean Alesi, JJ Lehto, Karl Wendlinger, and the deaths of Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger. In response to this situation, the FIA instituted further changes aimed at reducing downforce and horsepower to help ensure drivers safety; drivers were again skeptical. Martin Brundle commented, "if we are fundamentally changing the car to go to the next race with an unknown quantity it does not strike me as particularly safe." About a week and half later, Lotus driver Pedro Lamy was nearly killed in a crash testing the new modifications. All of these changes exposed the safety void that existed in Formula One as well as exposed the poor, rushed decision making.

Today similar conditions are brewing. There appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to implement new regulations in addition to the ones coming on-line for 2009 in an effort to deal with cost. There have been a number of proposals that give the impression that drastic action is needed if the sport is to remain competitive and viable. In 1994, the economy was not in great shape and the wide sweeping technical changes were in response to the perception that F1 was 'losing' the competition with CART so a swift response was needed. In 2008, the global economy is in crisis and the sport wants to slash costs but introduce new technology and regulations while competing with evermore diverging fan interests. And we see that F1 is trying to enact a swift response in an effort to remain sustainable.

Even though the times are tough, Formula One needs to be very prudent and not fall victim to the law of unintended consequences. Each time there has been a major overhaul of the sport there has been push back from the teams. This time there seems to be very little push back, so the additional reforms that are proposed might be implemented. I hope with the rush to cut costs that safety is not reduced due to teams not properly sorting their cars because they have budget caps or can not test car properly. Moreover, I hope safety is not reduced because one bad batch of standard parts effects 4 or 5 teams instead of 1 team resulting in accidents. To keep the sport sustainable and exciting will be much appreciated by F1 fans in the long run, but to do it at the expense of killing or maiming 2 or 3 drivers in the process is not the legacy the FIA and F1 need to be remembered by.

Wet Weather Driving is Overrated

Back in 2007, I looked into wet weather driving and its importance in the overall scheme of Formula One racing from the years 1977-2006. I wanted to see if it was important to possess such skill to be a success F1 driver. For example, Alain Prost was not considered to be a very good wet weather driver, but he won 4 championships and retired the all time leader in F1 wins. Currently, Felipe Massa appears to be useless in the wet, but is right in the thick of the championship battle against Hamilton and Raikkonen; drivers that are superior to him in wet conditions. I am revisiting this data in the season and a half since it was collected. For the sake of disclosure and reader fact checking, the numbers were calculated using FORIX and show the number of F1 races that had official weather conditions of either rain, wet or showers (no qualifying sessions were calculated).

The question boils down to "what is the actual advantage when 87% of the races from 1977-2006 were dry races?" In this period there have been 11 seasons where the title was decided by 8 points or less; only 4 of them are seasons in which the driver that scored the most points in wet races won a title. Those seasons are 1983, 1988, 1990 and 1999. In the 2007, we had 3 wet races and the title was decided by 1 point. The driver that scored the most points in wet conditions was Fernando Alonso and he technically finished 3rd in the title chase behind Hamilton and Raikkonen, drivers that have also demonstrated to be quick in wet conditions. However, if a rain master like Alonso can score the most points in rain conditions but lose the title, what difference does it make?

Given the data that was accumulated, wet weather driving ability is not so important. It is not important to the same degree that a single driver's car development skills are not important. If 87% of races in the past 30 years are dry races than the likelihood of using such skills is remote; in the same way that if a driver with poor car development skills is supported by good testers and a teammate that possesses such skills or there is a rules package that deminishes the value of such skills, the hinderance is minimized. In both wet weather driving and car development, the 'weakness' is hidden. In the first case, by the lack of wet weather. In the second case, by the skills of teammates or rules package. In my opinion you can be an average driver in the wet, maybe even below average, like Massa, and still be a successful driver.

There will be moments in time and history where these skills will be the difference. The period of 1987-1996, nearly 17% of the races were wet races (more than the average) is a period for driver like Senna to shine. In 2007, wet weather driving skills, or lack thereof, continued to not have an impact. However in 2008, we will see if it plays role. The 2 wet races this season have been won by Lewis Hamilton. He has a 6 point lead over Felipe Massa; again a driver that many consider to be below average in wet conditions. If Massa wins the title, it would continue to confirm that wet weather driving skills are fun to watch but not important to being a World Champion.

Data using FORIX: 1977-2006