Bleacher Report - Articles by Pawel Hyrkiel

F1's Future: An Epitaph or Simply the End of a Chapter?

Pawel Hyrkiel — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:32:18 -0400

Banned in season testing, no aerodynamical development, engine freeze; these rules and many more have been introduced in F1 to make racing affordable. The desired result was to be an equalized field of machines that look fast at an economical price.

Rules pushed through for the 2008, and 2009 seasons appeared to be a genuine attempt at making the sport much leaner, exciting, and more 21st century. The result, the same type of racing, quite possibly at the same price as the previous seasons.

Half way through the 2009 season the F1 grid is being dominated by two teams. While there has been a resurgence of McLaren, Ferrari, and Renault performance, the team the fan is most likely to see on the podium, if not perched at the top of it is Brawn, or Red Bull.

A question must be asked, thus; if rules were rewritten to favor a more equally competitive field, why are fans witnessing a deluge of wins by one or two teams? Force India should be challenging for the podium, as should BMW, because the cars should not behave so differently when built according to specific rules.

Some fans will argue that while there are specific rules dictating almost every aspect of the car design, engineers tend to push the boundary and exploit specific details governing F1 design. Thus rules that were meant to change F1 have done absolutely nothing to the overall picture.

Yes, the players are different, but the final panorama appears the same. Thus one must ask, what is the point of these rule changes?

At the beginning of the F1 season the majority of reactions to the look of the 2009 machines were favorable. The fans were very satisfied that no longer was a Ferrari or McLaren covered with chimneys, fins, double fins, and so many other features.

F1 appeared to be rediscovering itself and its fanbase by following the simple rule of less is more.

The rules introduced to make the cars simpler in appearance were not intended to bring smiles back to the faces of the fans, but to make passing and racing more recurrent, and exciting. In the end, teams that were at the back are at the back, and those that once occupied the front row, are at the back ever so often.

It can be argued that the result is proof of the validity of the rules’ success, however the more likely explanation is that specific teams were able adapt to the rules much quicker, and easier.

Successes in the 2009 season, however will not translate into victories in the 2010 campaign, simply because rules are yet again being changed. Since refueling is to be banned, KERS is not considered a vital part of the design, F1 cars will once again change in shape and design.

In a sport that is concerned about its spending and image, introducing severe changes from season to season is contradictory to that very image. All the technology, development used to perfect the 2009 contenders is not being translated into design of the 2010 contenders.

A 2013 car will not trace its roots back to 2009, and neither will the 2010 contender, simply because the rules will have been rewritten to make the 2009 car obsolete and unusable in the new environment. If rules change from season to season then the resources implemented towards designing a car from 2009 are completely lost.

If a normal automobile is designed by BMW, and suddenly rules are introduced to dictate that cars no longer are permitted to travel on all four wheels, the combustion engine is no longer permitted to be used, and the driver is to sit where the passenger once sat, then BMW must completely redesign the entire car.

The previously implemented designs are obsolete, and BMW must start anew. On the outside BMW may appear not to concern itself with having lost moneys put in to developing the previous models of cars, but in reality BMW sees this as wasted resources; while the new design and profits from the new design may justify the decision to abandon the designs and millions if not billions, but moneys are still lost.

A team like Force India may find it difficult to go from season to season not building on their development and starting from square one. The constant changing of rules, hence, contradicts what F1 is trying to achieve. If F1 is attempting to minimize budgets then it must return back to its character of fluidic development.

If one is to examine the 2002 Ferrari contender its roots can be traced back to 1997; the F2002 was the most perfect Ferrari, yet it was not the result of a few months development. To achieve perfection took several seasons.

Ferrari may not be every fans favorite team, but their successes speak for themselves. Yes, one might argue that the budget spent over one season was enormous, yet the developed components were reused or modified on the next year’s car. Innovations were not scrapped, ideas were built upon, and evolution occurred.

In 2009 the cars changed dramatically; instead of building upon something developed new ideas were introduced. This revolution was bound to happen, and yet money spent today is headed towards the trash can of tomorrow.

Instead of allowing the cars to develop naturally, bound by specific rules of design, F1 is being altered yet again because the 2009 model did not work. The idea to abandon a course because you ended up in a different place altogether is erroneous.

If an experiment does not work accordingly those involved build on the results. F1 needs to return to that very model, and let racing take its course. Yes, F1 grids will not change overnight, but if one continually abandons the previous season’s rules governing design and racing, then budgets will be wasted, teams abandon the sport, and the champion at the pinnacle of motorsport be toppled.

Not only will continuation of previous season’s design, and transference of ideas, and fluidic development through the seasons save costs, it will allow the smaller teams to perfect their cars honing in on the positives and developing the errors.

Perhaps if Force India or Williams develop the car over two or three seasons, the contender in 2010 or 2011 will be one of the serious front runners on a grid of 20 cars and not six.

War of Words Reignite As the Sports Character of F1 Is Ressurected

Pawel Hyrkiel — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:22:19 -0400

With all this FOTA unity, and a united front opposing Max, F1 had become a Sleeping Beauty or Snow White. Over the past few months Ferrari has “held hands” with McLaren, an idea that has made Enzo turn in his grave.

But now that there is peace in our times, this wonderful image of paradise is no more.

There is still a FOTA, but it seems that now that a goal has been reached, the image of peace and unity has been replaced by the off track rivalry that has been so prevalent throughout F1’s colorful history.

“Aerodynamics are for people who can't build engines,” is a quote that defines Enzo’s views about Lotus and all the other manufacturers. Yet when compared against the quotes released this past week the comment is quite tame:

"Guess who opposed the test with the F60?" read a brief statement on Ferrari's website. "A team that hasn't won anything for years and yet didn't pass over the opportunity to demonstrate once more a lack of spirit of fair play. But it seems even in this instance someone decided to stick to the precise wording of the regulations."

While Williams may have been un-sporting in their decision to deny Michael a test of the F60 who can really blame the blue-and-white? The team’s membership in the FOTA was revoked without question or consideration; however Ferrari has been well known for its strong responses against those opposing their ideas and views.

The Stepney-gate affair, as well as the diffuser-gate affair are the most recent examples of Ferrari shooting first and asking questions later; in each case Ferrari representatives, be it lawyers, ex-team members, or current team members have accused the opposing sides of everything from dishonoring the sport to outright cheating and lying.

Ferrari is not alone in this boat; Flavio Briatore, Jackie Stewart, Fernando Alonso, Eddie Jordan, members of McLaren, and so many more have all made strong accusations regardless if their words are simple opinions or valid points.

While the comments are uttered to cast a spotlight on certain matters or bring their author to the forefront they add a spice to the sport.

When Federer won the fifteenth grand-slam, Roddick’s post-match comments confirmed that every sport has its trash talk, football (be it soccer or the gridiron), basketball, boxing, and even tennis all feature trash talk.

There is proper trash talk, such as telling the opposing team that they will suffer a heavy defeat, in not so proper words, and improper trash talk where nation’s flags are burned or tarnished.

Trash talk is part of any sport; it pumps teams and fans alike—The classic F1 trash talk has been missed in the sport.

While the F1 community has benefited by a united front to get things done, that battle is now over, and it is time to focus on the real war. The business has been concluded, the company contract extended, and the future of the sport has been secured.

It is time for the gloves to come off and the sport replaces the business, on track and in the daily columns.

Looking Back At an Old Page-Turner From a By Gone Era

Pawel Hyrkiel — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 19:42:43 -0400

F1 Racing, The World’s Best Selling magazine, is the fans’ portal into the world of F1. Each month you can purchase a copy of the publication and read race reviews, interviews of everyone from team principals to drivers, columns by Alan Henry, Peter Windsor, Murray Walker, and so much more. It is an interesting and fact-filled publication which also provides the fans with stunning photographs taken at tests and races.

F1 Racing is also the only F1-specific magazine, but a few years back such was not the case.

For some time Formula One was publishing their own magazine. The two publications were significantly different and if one were to compare the two the comparison would be similar to comparing Time magazine to the Economist.

F1 Racing, the equivalent to Time magazine: It is quite good, it presents a thorough picture of the current status of the sport, and touches upon important issues of the past, present, and future. It features phenomenal writers such as Alan Henry, Peter Windsor, Murray Walker, and purchasing a copy each month is a pleasure.

F1—The Official Formula One Magazine, the equivalent of the Economist in the world of F1 publication, was very thorough. It featured the writing of Jason Barlow, Zoe Crosher, Sarah Edworthy, and many others. The names may be foreign to many because they are not seen on television, like Peter Windsor, but each of the person’s CV is extensive.

The magazine touched upon issues of the past, the present, the future, like F1 Racing. The two were very similar, however differed as much as night and day.

The Official Formula One Magazine was printed on superior paper and in doing so the photographs selected in the “Focus” section looked richer. The race coverage sections were not printed on glossy paper, and thus one had the distinct feeling of reading a different section without reading the content.

The content was also where the two publications differed immensely. While F1 Racing focuses on racing alone, the other publication touched upon F1 racing and its culture.

After buying an issue of F1 the reader could be sure he or she would read about anything from a review of top five fancy travel bags to details on where to eat, drink, stay, or shop in a city hosting the Grand Prix. Issues of F1 would feature a page or two in regards to fancy watches, F1-inspired art, lap tops, digital cameras, mini fridges, everyday accessories influenced by F1, aftershave, skin care, most rare of the motorcycles such as Ducati and Petronas, and so much more.

The Official Formula One Magazine did not stop there, the June 2003 issue featured an article about David Coulthard’s new venture (in 2003), the Columbus Hotel, an impressive property that looks as good in real life as it did in the pages of the magazine.

The writing was matched by the photography; the photographs of the products reviewed as well the photographs accompanying each of the articles could take the reader’s breath away.

The Official Formula One Magazine also featured a side diagram of each track for an upcoming event. The side diagram presented the reader with a three dimensional impression of the track and was far easier to follow than a birds-eye photograph. The track may have not been reviewed by an F1 driver, but it came with a description of the important chicanes or turns, as well as information on “the key turn.”

The F1 fan was presented with a thorough event guide, information on last year’s strategy, and finally the race results of past three years.

While the photographs, diagrams, reviews, and articles gave the magazine a distinct character and superior quality, the magazine also presented its subscriber with the diagram of the various technological modifications from race to race. The illustrations were very detailed and featured a description of the reason a specific team may have adopted this new upgrade and how it may affect the overall performance.

The feature in the magazine was almost the cherry on top of the cake, and while it was an interesting feature in the article it would find no place in the 2009 edition, should the publication still be in print.

The magazine was interesting to read and look through, and each issue featured a crossword puzzle as well as a trivia game called “F1 Mastermind.”

The Formula One Official Magazine, like the Pay-Per View channel, was unfortunately scrapped by Formula One Management. While some people look back with a sense of nostalgia on the publication, even fewer probably remember the magazine. And as F1 moves forward the fate of the magazine is being shared by BAR, Super Aguri, Honda, and BMW-Sauber shortly.

Safety is Vital to Formula One, But at What Cost?

Pawel Hyrkiel — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:27:14 -0400

“You accept the fact that Formula One is totally futile and stupid and still you carry on, because what is out there on the track is so exhilarating for the selfish man behind the wheel.” - Jackie Stewart

“Jimmy ranked with, perhaps even out-ranked, Nuvolari, Fangio and Moss, and I think we all felt he was in a way invincible. To be killed in an accident with a Formula Two car is almost unacceptable” - Bruce McLaren

“That year of 1968 was horrific, with a driver being killed on or about the seventh of each month. On the seventh day of each month you weren’t keen to go out in the car.” - Chris Amon

“We all get scared, but I get scared that something will happen with the car. It’s the cars that break, not the drivers.” - Jochen Rindt

“I worshipped the guy. He was totally adorable. Everybody in motor racing turned out for his funeral. And there were plenty of red eyes from the hard guys.” - Frank Williams

“I was trying to get people to help me, and if I could have turned the car over he would have been alright.” - David Purley

“Francois had become part of our little family His enthusiasm and character were such that he sort of lightened our lives. He was always outgoing and there was a sparkle about him. The loss of Francois must have been close to losing a son.” - Ken Tyrell

“It makes me extremely angry when we lose drivers of the calibre of Tom. People do not listen enough to the drivers, yet we are the ones who take the greatest risk.” - James Hunt

“Hello Gilles: I still cannot believe that you are no more… I did not know Nuvolari but I will talk to my daughter with pride about you. I will be able to tell her that I delighted in you and cried for you.

"I have within me the sense of infinite emptiness that I feel nothing will be able to fill except with my tears. I hope that up there you have found a circuit and when the starting light is green, go Gilles.”

“Roland was just a great, great guy. He’d be top of the list if you were going out for a drink with the boys.” - Nick Wirth

“There is not a driver in the world who will not be shocked and deeply affected by the terrible news.” - Nigel Mansell

These comments, along with others not mentioned are witness to the losses in Formula One. Formula One and death have gone hand in hand for decades, yet in over 15 years F1 has not had a fatality in racing, testing, or qualifying.

The lack of death on the track is proof that Formula 1 has become a very safe sport, and its record has been unmatched by the large series; INDY and NASCAR have been struck by deaths more recently.

F1 does still have its accidents. Silverstone 1999, Montreal 2007, Hungaroring 2009 are all proof of how safe F1 has become. Michael Schumacher, Kimi Raikkonen, Robert Kubica, Mark Webber, Felipe Massa are just a few of the recent F1 drivers that have been through an accident and lived to either race, walk, or live since the time of their experience.

The lack of death in Formula 1 is the result of constant improvements to safety, a quest taken up by Sir Jackie Stewart. From the method the ARMCO barriers are placed or shaped, to the existence of an on track medical facilities and proper safety car, Jackie Stewart has had a hand in it.

Shunned at first for his ideas by those within the F1 fraternity and outside Sir Jackie Stewart has had an uphill battle, yet through perseverance, and belief in his dreams and ideas he has made them a reality.

By taking on this difficult quest Sir Jackie has changed the sport for the better, and while he may have stepped away from the battle front others have taken on the fight for him.

From season to season, from a shocking accident to another the sport is adapting new safety measures aimed at prolonging the lifespan of their participants. Yet as F1 is becoming safer, is it losing its identity?

Thanks to that work drivers are not lost, and it is possible for the fans to focus on the successes and glory rather than death on track. The lack of fatalities has also improved the following of the sport as fans are not turned away by horrific images comparable to those from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.

F1 is thus safer, but as the sport seeks to become ever safer is it sacrificing its excitement and its character? Is F1 becoming a mere set of high speed parade laps to promote products and manufacturers?

When F1 was first established as a series in the 1950s the flimsy cars were driven by average men in simple clothing. The drivers had no protection from the elements such as an 800g spring which nearly ended Felipe Massa’s life, from fires that have been rampant throughout F1, or things like rocks, fire extinguishers, or many other threats.

In 2009 the cars are put through strenuous sets of tests that determine the cars’ strengths and reactions to various impacts or situations, while the drivers are protected from outside threats including fires and rocks.

The level of safety that is available to the current F1 driver is unmatched by previous seasons, and in 2010 the drivers will most likely be even more protected.

Having a driver that can climb into the cockpit knowing full well that their safety lies not only in the hands of god is beneficial to the spectacle as drivers are able to push without having that uneasy feeling of impending death at each corner.

Safety to the drivers can not be sacrificed for the sake of the person within the car and the sport itself. Yet when the tracks that the drivers are competing on are being modified to make them safer F1 suffers.

There are tracks such as Monaco that can not really be modified because I doing so one would have to demolish blocks or add another tunnel.

There are other tracks such as Monza and Imola that required modification to add to the racing experience. There is modification that makes a track safer, such as longer run off areas, yet the line between making a track safe and boring is quite thin.

A track can be modified by replacing gravel traps with a concrete run off area. This modification allows the car to continue the race after venturing off track without getting beached in gravel.

A flat and deep concrete run off area also makes a track far safer; a car no longer veers out off control when it drives off track, and instead the driver is able to apply brakes to slow down the car before the eventual crash that is bound to follow.

Felipe Massa’s accident could have been fatal had there been no run off in Hungary; Felipe already concussed and stunned by the impact of the spring in the last second was able to apply the breaks slowing down the car and decreasing the poser of the impact, but had there been gravel the car would have most likely been launched into the air after leaving the track and impacted with greater velocity into the tire wall.

While adding run off areas is one safety measure adding extra chicanes to slow down a car takes away from the character of the track. The Belgian track at Spa was modified heavily with the addition of the Bus Stop chicane; this did slow down the cars, but the very identity of the track of the sacrificed.

There are some chicanes that need to be altered because of how the cars now react on track, yet what if the FIA decided to remove Eau Rouge or add a chicane to it?

In 2004 the Indy GP of the United States was only contested by a fraction of the grid because Michelin was made the mistake of bringing the wrong tires to the race; the teams asked for a chicane to be added to turn 13 where the tires failed on several occasions, and while the race was a fiasco the decision by the FIA can not be faulted.

Adding a chicane to turn 13 would resemble adding a chicane to the Eau Rouge or modifying Beckets. There are some things that can not be changed, can not be modified, and in doing so F1 tracks are losing their very character.

F1 tracks have been designed in a certain way to showcase a car’s potential, speed, and beauty. By making a change to parts of the track simply to slow down a car takes away from the excitement.

If F1 continues along this path then today are tracks will be ghosts of yesterday; will the sport still be as exciting? If the threat of incident is eliminated from the races will F1 still be exciting F1? More importantly, what will be the justification for the large salaries that F1 drivers enjoy?

F1 in the 1950s was a sport run by average amateur men who had other professions outside the F1 circle, yet sometime in time the sport became a business.

F1 drivers were no longer just sports men, and certainly not amateur drivers; F1 pilots were now employees of large companies and business representatives, and their salaries grew significantly.

As F1 speeds picked up and the sport became far more competitive, salaries grew immensely; the most well paid jobs are also some of the most dangerous, and the speed combined with the danger of F1 has classified the drivers into that category. If F1 drivers no longer face any danger can their salaries be justified?

The future is difficult to predict, and many questions will come and go. Twenty years from now will F1 still be the pinnacle of motor-sports as it tries to become a safe and respectable competition?

More importantly, will there be drivers willing to compete if F1 has become an uncompetitive parade of red, silver, yellow, white, blue billboards for the richest companies?

Williams Racing Has a Winning Track Record, But Talent Is Stuck In Neutral

Pawel Hyrkiel — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:32:08 -0400

When one examines the history of F1 Williams have taken 9 Constructor crowns and 7 Drivers’ championships. Whether the team is a team established in 1977, which started with a customer March 761, or a big time constructor, that is an impressive record.

Along with Ferrari, McLaren, and Renault (formerly Benetton), Williams is one of the "Big Four" teams that have won every constructors' championship since 1979 and every driver's championship since 1984. Williams remains the only one independently owned, as the other three "factory teams" have been set up by or bought out by major automobile manufacturers.

In 1992, 1993, 1996, and 1997 Williams took crowns, the drivers and the constructors. They were the winners of the constructors' championship only in 1994. Easy to say the 90s were good for Williams. Not only were they winning crowns, but their cars were some of the most advanced on the grid.

Active suspension and traction control systems may have been beyond anything available to the other teams, but to Williams they were normal features on their cars.

Cars were not the only thing that other teams could envy Williams. Many famous racing drivers have driven for Williams, including Australia's Alan Jones; Finland's Keke Rosberg; Britain's Nigel Mansell and Damon Hill; France's Alain Prost; Brazil's Nelson Piquet and Ayrton Senna, and Canada's Jacques Villeneuve, each of whom, with the exception of Senna, have captured one Drivers' title with the team.

Williams Grand Prix has also employed some of the greatest minds in Racing, Adrian Newey, Patrick Head, Frank Dernie, and Sam Michael have all been involved with Williams. They have helped Williams triumph, or simply kept it competitive in the midfield of the F1 grid.

The last time Williams has been competitive was in 2003; Juan Pablo Montoya finished the season in 3rd, and Ralf Schumacher in 5th. Since then Williams’ success has declined from year to year, and while Frank Williams and Patrick Head may put on a brave face, Williams needs to turn around their fortunes, needs to start winning.

To win in F1 is not an easy task, and takes years to achieve. There are no exemptions; Brawn’s current successes are the results of the funding by Honda and development and planning work by Ross Brawn.

Ferrari did not clinch championships with Michael Schumacher and Kimi Raikkonen within a year. Ferrari’s first serious contender in the recent years was designed for the 1997 season and the first car that clinched the championship for the Scuderia the F399 as well as the last one to take the crown the F2008 are all direct descendants of that first car the F310B.

Williams must then build on the car designed for 2009 to start wining the championships; Williams can not keep changing the very character of their vehicle. That may be a challenging task as there seems to be little continuance in design due to the variation of rules to help improve the show.

Yet this may not be so difficult, because while the exterior of the automobile differs immensely, the inner skeleton or character of the car does not differ as such. Williams must then begin designing a competitive car and maintain research and development from the current season and combine it with the vision of the future.

Williams has brilliant and passionate team members, and they are capable of turning out a competitive machine and a giant killer; history has shown that Williams can take on the competition and win by focusing on a single factor.

At the 1985 Australian Grand Prix Williams took an impossible win; by understanding that the car had no grip into the corners Frank Dernie decided to use the car’s awesome speed to achieve victory. By removing the wing from the car completely and going flat out on the straights Williams maximized on the car’s strongest characteristic, and beat out the Turbos.

Yet perhaps Williams is not capable of winning; limited testing and lack of possibility for new and ground breaking designs due to rules dictating consistent engine package and chassis rules have changed the landscape of F1. The balance between driver and car is now offset; while the car’s development is still vital, the driver’s talent is now more important. Williams needs new talent, hungry talent, and unknown talent.

While the cars are an important part of the Sport, drivers are what separate the champion from the first of the losers. The last champion for Williams was Jacques Villeneuve and Damon Hill one year before him.

Since then Williams has seen promising drivers come and go, Ralf Schumacher, Juan Pablo Montoya, and Mark Webber. None of these drivers have delivered. Currently Williams is running Nico Rosberg, and Kazuki Nakajima, and they have failed to deliver until now.

The latest racer the FW31, designed for the 2009 season looked like a potential winner, and featured technology that has made the Brawn GP car the current championship leader. The FW31 had the twin diffuser technology, and yet it is not at the front of the grid.

When the McLaren 2009 racer came out it was the slowest car on the grid; it was not on the same technological level as the Williams machine, and yet in Hungary Lewis Hamilton won the car driving it.

The MP4-24, the F60, both the biggest disappointment of the early parts of the 2009 season, yet both teams are seeing improvements of race end track position the further the season progresses. Surely Williams has not stood still in development; should that be the case why is Williams not taking podiums on an average basis, why is the FW31 not qualified on pole, or at least threatening the Red Bulls, the Brawns, the Renaults?

The issue most certainly must be the driver talent. Nico Rosberg and Kazuki Nakajima are not bad drivers; they have talent, but it might not be the talent that suits the Williams model. From weekend to weekend the two perform admirably, yet they are not able to get the .100s out of the car. While they have a strong showing, the two are not winning; Frank Williams once told his team that second is the first of the losers, which says quite a bit about his view on the current status of Williams.

As the 2009 season draws to an end Williams must make some hard choices and figure out how to approach the 2010 season. As more and more teams drop out Williams constant presence in F1 indicates their passion and love for the sport.

While Williams have not won a championship in over the decade their commitment to the sport means that in the BMW-Williams partnership only one was serious about F1. The other? You decide.

Euro 2012: The Problem with Co-Ventures

Pawel Hyrkiel — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:54:01 -0400

The awarding of the Euro Cup 2012 to both Poland and Ukraine came with incredible honor. To both countries, this signified recognition by FIFA and UEFA of the two countries being on equal terms with the rest of Europe, despite being part of either the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact less than two decades ago.

To Poland, this recognition also carried a message that members of the EU believe that the nation’s economy is strong enough to support such a challenging venture. Poland does not have such an infrastructure equal to Germany, France, Spain, Austria, Belgium, or many other countries in Europe, and neither does the Ukraine.

To successfully stage such an event new stadiums, roads, hotels, and many other structures will need to be put up, and this is not an easy task, considering that the world has now fallen into a recession.

Poland’s and Ukraine’s co-bid was successful, taking eight votes to Italy's four, while Croatia and Hungary received none. "This big tournament will be a milestone in the common history of two Slavic nations," boasted Polish Football Association chairman Michal Listkiewicz. “Finally, the big event is going to the countries which have had no opportunities to improve football."

Nearly two years from that fateful day in Cardiff, Wales, when victory by the co-venture was announced, the reality of the event taking place in Ukraine and Poland is in question. The current state of the bid is in question, as completion of the Ukraine stadiums faces uncertainty.

In October 2008, it was announced by the officials that authorities in Ukraine's western city of Lviv are looking for new builders after an Austrian firm pulled out of constructing a stadium for the Euro 2012 finals.

The incident was the second involving Ukrainian stadiums for the tournament, after authorities had to change the general contractor for renovation of Kiev's main stadium, due to host the Euro 2012 final.

While Michel Platini, chairman of the UEFA, has voiced his support for the joint venture, he has made it clear that if Kiev’s stadium is not modernized, Ukraine will lose the co-host status.

"There are huge infrastructure problems to be resolved in Ukraine," Platini explained. Lviv, Donetsk and Kharkiv have until 30 November to prove their suitability. Warszawa, Poznan, Wroclaw and Gdansk have been confirmed as the Polish venues.

While the stadiums remain a point of contention, the infrastructure, such as roads and residences for both the team members and media need to be also improved.

Should any cities be dropped there are reserve venues, some of which should have originally been selected as host cities, including Krakow, which is set to renovate the Wisla stadium by 2010.

All eyes will thus be on Ukraine in November, and should all go well for Ukraine then the two nations will host one of the most important and biggest sporting events in their history. Should all fail, then Poland will be left footing the bill.

Yet should the co-venture fail, there is already a line-up of candidates willing to take up the challenge of hosting the event, or so the media claims.

What Next? Ferrari's Difficult Question

Pawel Hyrkiel — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 17:12:50 -0400

Following the accident during the Grand Prix weekend past, Ferrari made the decision to still run a second car with an alternate driver. The incident in the end did not prove life threatening, however the driver was left without the ability to operate the car altogether.

That decision was made following the 1999 British Grand Prix, during which Michael Schumacher broke his leg in a crash; Mika Salo was the driver of choice to partner Eddie Irvine at Ferrari. While in his second race in Ferrari at the 1999 German Grand Prix Salo led for part of the and at Monza he also finished third, ahead of Irvine, Mika’s career never took off in the right direction.

Whether the reason for Mika’s failure to succeed had to do with his level of talent or the quality of the equipment he operated, or a mix of both, it is not really known.

Ten years after that incident, Ferrari is facing an almost identical situation. On Saturday July 25^th at the Hunargoring, Massa was struck by a bouncing 800g piece of debris, which had fallen off the car of Rubens Barrichello.

Felipe Massa underwent surgery as a result of the incident; the young Brazilian was reported to have suffered bone damage of his skull and a brain concussion, and was excluded from the Sunday race in Budapest. The doctors, having induced a coma from which he will waken in 48 hours, have done everything physically possible to save the Ferrari piloti.

It is a relief to the fans, the public, and the writer of this article that Felipe’s condition is listed as stable, and hopefully the Brazilian will emerge in perfect health after 48 hour coma. While the news that Felipe is fine brings a huge level of relief, the team must start looking towards the future, both short term and long term.

When Michael had his accident in 1999, the team made the decision to higher a temporary replacement so that the team could try and challenge for the points. While the team is not fighting for the championship crowns in 2009, points are still vital towards the 2010 budget.

While Ferrari could continue running a single car at each Grand Prix, the decision to do so would impact how high up the championship ladder the team is able to finish. The ultimate position in the ladder at the end of the season rules the total amount of fees paid out by the FIA to the team towards the 2010 season.

Due to Ferrari’s reliability issues and lack of performance in 2010, it is possible that only one car would score points towards the championship at each Grand Prix. However running two cars versus one can maximize the team’s chances of scoring those vital points.

Running only one car at each event may quite possibly also affect the standings with the sponsors; Ferrari has sponsors that have paid the team for exposure based on two cars bearing the logos, and should only one car be competing the exposure is halved.

While the second car was not run at the Hungarian Grand Prix due to respect for Felipe, should he not be ready to compete at the European Grand Prix the uncomfortable yet important question must be asked. Once Felipe is revived and his condition is diagnosed as recovering but not yet ready to race, who should be his replacement?

Jaguar, Honda, BMW, McLaren, all have been forced to field a temporary driver in the past. Depending on the race, the team, and the driver, the replacement proved very successful or was compared to a moving pylon. Teams have given opportunities to ex-F1 drivers, test-drivers, and competitors in the feeder or junior formulas; and the choice of a test driver has backfired most of the time.

Yet Ferrari could very well choose to give the drive to either Luca Badoer or Marc Gene. Luca Badoer has raced for the Scuderia Italia, Minardi, and Forti Corse teams, and is presently a test driver for the Ferrari F1 team; his experience of 56 starts could be beneficial should Ferrari make the decision to run him as a replacement driver. His innate knowledge of the F60 could also make him a wise choice. At the same time, Luca has not driven the car in anger, has not tried to block the opposition, or execute a pass in quite some time, and hence might not be the best selection for the position.

Marc Gene is Ferrari’s second test driver. On November 2004, Gené signed a deal to become a test driver for Scuderia Ferrari alongside former team-mate Luca Badoer. His contract was renewed for 2007, and while he remains a member of the Scuderia the 2008 regulations have limited his involvement with the car.

He has raced with Minardi as late as 1999, and his recent racing experience and victory with Peugeot at the 2 hours of Le Mans could give him the advantage over Luca Badoer, should the decision need to be made.

Yet Ferrari could very well reach outside its current roster. On November 26th, 2008 Ferrari invited the top three finishers in the Italian Formula 3 Championship to test its Formula 1 car.

"For every generation, Scuderia Ferrari is a symbol for all those who have a passion for racing," commented Ferrari President Luca di Montezemolo. "Looking to the youngsters and to the future, I hope this initiative can contribute to the development of young drivers and also to the regeneration of motor sport in our country."

"One of the stated duties of the Federation is the development of this sport in Italy, and that includes promoting young drivers," commented the President of the ACI-CSAI, Gino Macaluso.

The quickest driver in last year's test was Mirko Bortolotti. Mirko is merely 19 however his racing pedigree and talent is already showing. At the F2008 test, he impressed the team with his performance setting a time of 59.111 seconds, quicker than the previous fastest lap set by the F2008 at the circuit by any driver, and picked up Red Bull backing and a place in Formula 2 for the 2009 season.

Mirko has less experience in F1 than either one of the Ferrari test drivers, and while it is possible that he may prove to be a future champion and may perform well on his first outing, it is possible that he could prove an embarrassment and hence ruin his career by this stunt. At the same time, Rome was not built in one day.

"If you think I am good wait until my nephew arrives."

Ayrton Senna’s words are not quickly forgotten, and Bruno Senna’s, the nephew in question’s, on track performances seem to validate the statement. In 2008, he finished 2^nd in the GP2 series, and was being considered by Brawn GP as a possible driver for the 2009 season. His drive with Brawn never materialized, but since being denied a 2009 drive he has competed in the Le Mans race, and the 1000 km of Catalunya.

He was rumored to be a candidate as a replacement for Sebastian Bourdais, and was offered an opportunity to compete in DTM for Mercedes, an opportunity he declined. Senna will get into F1 at some point, and perhaps Ferrari would be a wise option, even if it were for duration of two or three races. It would be a partnership that even Enzo dreamt of, but it is also one that may take years to materialize.

Should Bruno prove to be as magnetic as his father was then he could possibly bring glory to the Scuderia unseen since the days of Michael Schumacher. Should Bruno be a mirror image of Ayrton, then he should be signed long term by Ferrari versus just for a few season ending races; since both Massa and Raikkonen have contracts with Ferrari until the end of 2010 there would be no place for Bruno at Ferrari at this time.

Who may be offered a ride for the rest of the season is an ex-driver? Sebastian Bourdais, although managed by Nicolas Todt, would most likely not be offered the opportunity; Jean Todt, Nicolas’ father no longer has vital input into the workings of Ferrari, if any, and Sebastian has not really shown much potential.

The driver that may be offered the opportunity to help Ferrari is Michael Schumacher. Michael has been visible in the pits at many Grand Prix, offering support to the team and drivers on track. His re-entry into the sport as a driver for the remaining races of the ’09 season could prove quite beneficial to the team.

The Ferrari F60 has quite a few issues and its failure on the track can be compared to the 1996 car. The car was driven by Michael Schumacher, and to the wonder of his team mate, Eddie Irvine, Michael seemed to drive it quite well. The reason for the successful operating of the car has to do with Michael’s ability to drive anything well; this ability to make a bad car into a competitive race car is an amazing, but it is also one of the problems with Michael.

Mr. Schumacher has been described as a bad test driver; engineers need to be able to tell if anything that was done affected the performance, yet if each time the car is driven well the engineer can not tell if this is beneficial or takes away from the performance of the car. When two cars are being run by one team it is beneficial to have a sharing of setting data between the two drivers, but if one driver provides nothing then the development goes nowhere.

Hiring Michael Schumacher could prove beneficial; the F60 has up to now performed quite poorly with the exception of the brilliant showings and Michael could maximize its potential, even if there is none there.

The test ban in 2009 means that no radical developments can be introduced without the risk of hurting the current performance, and as a result Ferrari needs a driver that can threaten the points leaders, even if he is driving a pig. But does Schumacher have what it takes? In 2008 he demonstrated in tests that he still is able to not only set respected times, but also match the leaders’ performance levels.

The problem with Schumacher is that he may not wish to return to the cockpit, and should he make his return this is Ferrari, it is no longer team Schumacher. Could he be able to galvanize the team enough to overcome the issues and problems?

In the next few days, Ferrari will be facing difficult questions and ultimately. Can Massa race again? Can he ever win? Can he lead a normal life style?

The state of the Brazilian’s health is an unknown; throughout this entire weekend his condition ranged from stable to near-death, and the truth will only be known upon his return to consciousness from the coma.

Should Massa be able to compete, he will most likely miss a race or two; the extent of his injuries might force the Brazilian into early retirement, as history has shown. Let us then hope that he is built strong like Nigel Mansell, or as they say strong like Bull.

Forza Felipe!!!!

Ferrari Could Have Looked Outside the Box as F1 Crumbled

Pawel Hyrkiel — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 20:58:17 -0400

The true Ferrari road cars started with the 166 which were developed from the 125 range of race-oriented cars. The 125 S debuted at the Circuito di Piacenza; although it was a failure at its maiden grand prix, the 125 S won six of its fourteen races in 1947.

In 2007, the company was celebrating its sixtieth anniversary, having enjoyed a history of successes, failures, tragedies and triumphs in an eventful Six decades after the debut of the F1 racer, as well as the company’s first road going car.

Two years later, two constructor championships later Ferrari’s Board of Directors, chaired by Luca di Montezemolo, confirmed that the Italian company won’t be competing in Formula 1 in 2010.

The announcement did not come as much of a surprise and neither did their Ferrari’s announcement that the team were considering competing in other Motor-sport series.

The decision to reconsider the team’s involvement in Formula 1 has been the direct result of the FIA’s announcement to introduce a budget cap for 2010 and consider a two-tier Formula style championship. The decision by the FIA, and actions of the FOTA in the matter resulted in the threat of a civil war between the two parties.

Since that fateful day the two sides in this conflict have reached an understanding and the 2010 F1 season is set to begin next March. Certainly the rules are not in place, however there is now progress, and fans have something to look forward to.

Yet what would have happened, had the FIA not backed down, and had the FOTA members not shared Ferrari’s point of view? What if Ferrari did leave the sport it has been part of since its very beginning? Would F1 survive as a successful sport, or would it fall apart?

There are those out there that clearly support the idea that without the presence of Ferrari in the sport the sport is not really F1. There are those that consider the presence of Ferrari in Formula One as necessary for the sport; Ferrari is seen as a marker to measure one’s true success and superiority against.

Throughout history Ferrari has been synonymous with F1, sports car racing, endurance racing, before being considered a luxury automobile maker. The very reason that Ferrari road cars were built was to bankroll the company’s competition wing.

The team has been involved in various Motor-sport series throughout the decades, taking championships and winning Grand Prix along the way. The history of involvement in such classics as Mille Millia, Le Mans, Monte Carlo Rally, Group B Series, and many more demonstrates that Ferrari, despite its logo, is not a one horse team.

Thus, had Ferrari made good on the threat, the team would be successfully competing in another series.

The question remains, however, where would Ferrari go?

The 288 GTO Evoluzione was the car with which, in the 1980s, Ferrari intended to take on and beat Porsche’s high-tech 959 Group-B racer. The 1982 established series, Group B, folded after the death of Henri Toivonen and his co-driver in the 1986 Tour de Corse.

As a result of the disestablishment of the series Ferrari in 2010 could not compete in Group B; the team would also not venture into the newly re-formed Indy/Cart racing series.

The team had proven successful at Indy in the 1950s, and in 1986 went as far as designing a car for the Indy series, however in leaving F1 for Indy/Cart the team would not be making much of a change.

Indy has specific rules and regulations; technologies are limited as is the development, and the cars are far more standard in their development than the F1 cars are.

While any F1 team seeks to clinch two championships, the drivers’ and the constructors’, each year to the Scuderia Ferrari the ultimate prize is the constructors’ championship because it is the championship that identifies Ferrari as the designer of the ultimate car.

When the cars become more and more identical the idea of a constructors’ championship becomes useless; if all cars are identical the sport is still a team sport, but no longer a constructors’ sport. Hence Ferrari would never enter another series where each car on the grid is not different than the other.

Again, this begs a question, where would Ferrari go?

One of the directions that Ferrari could possibly consider is Rally racing. Ferrari is not identified with Rally Racing; however the two have a history. In 1971 The Lancia Stratos was launched; while it was a Lancia car the project had links to the Scuderia.

The car was originally powered by a Lancia engine; however the engine of the Lancia was switched to the mid-mounted 190 bhp (140 kW) 2418 cc Dino Ferrari V6.

The car won the 1974, 1975, and 1976 championship titles in the hands of Sandro Munari and Björn Waldegård, and might have gone on to win more had not internal politics within the Fiat group placed rallying responsibility on the Fiat 131 Abarths.

While only the engine may have been a Ferrari component, and the car a Lancia, beginning in 1978 a Ferrari 308GTB competed in some of Europe’s most gruelling Rally events. Chassis 20951, first introduced to the press in March 1978, started its career competing in several Italian rallies.

The project was “endorsed” by Enzo Ferrari, and two years after first appearing on the rally circuit was being entered into the Targa Fiorio, and he Hunsruck Rally in Germany. Chassis 20951, a 308GTB, modified by Michelotto from Padua was replaced by the lighter and more powerful chassis 26713.

The car went on to compete and win on the Quattro Regione in Italy, the Belgium 12 Hours of Ypres, and the Cevennes Rally. While the project had been “endorsed” by Enzo Ferrari it was not really a true Ferrari project and could not really compete against the might of the factory backed Renault Five Turbos and Audi Quattros.

Currently Kimi Raikkonen contests several rallies each season, and should Ferrari decided to enter the sport they would have a driver ready for the challenge. A second car could be run by the team with the already experienced Valentino Rossi as driver.

Should Ferrari decide to enter Rally Racing, would the spectators see Kimi and Valentino behind a heavily Ferrarified version of a FIAT Abarth, or would a car be specifically designed for the series?

In the past the one race that was synonymous with Ferrari, however, aside from F1, was Le Mans. Beating Ferrari has been important to many manufacturers competing in the 24 hour endurance race. Porsche, Ford, Jaguar, and many others have all desired to beat Ferrari.

The level of the competition or rivalry between Ferrari and its Le Mans arch rival Porsche has been captured in the 1971 movie “Le Mans.” The rivalry between Ferrari and Ford was intensified by Enzo Ferrari’s last moment decision to not sell Ferrari to Ford; Ford reacted to the decision by developing the GT40 and dominating the race, but more importantly beating Ferrari.

Ferrari cars have been successfully racing at Le Mans; however not since 1973 has Ferrari competed in Sports Car Racing as a factory team. The last Ferrari Prototype to dominate sports car racing was the 312PB, and while in 1992 Ferrari 333 SP was built it was not built to be raced by Scuderia Ferrari.

Like with the 308GTB, Michelotto yet again was the builder of the Ferrari. Unlike the 996 built by Porsche for endurance racing, however, the Ferrari’s machine wasn’t competitive for long.

As the 333 SP became outdated in chassis, engine and aerodynamics, it gradually disappeared from international sports car racing. In 2001, no Ferrari prototype raced in the ALMS.

When Ferrari retired from the sport in 1973 it was a sad day. Le Mans did survive, because the name of Ferrari was replaced by Porsche, Audi, Peugeot, Bentley, and many others.

Ferrari, however, could fit in quite well. The engine of the F1 Ferraris has been very reliable, and reliability is key to winning Le Mans. The team also have a truck load of options on which to base their Prototype sports car; the 599 FXX, the Enzo FXX, the F430, and as Maserati and Ferrari fall under the same FIAT umbrella there is also the Maserati C12.

Le Mans, Rally Racing, even the Dakar Rally, could all present an interesting and tempting challenge for Scuderia Ferrari. The three series would test the machinery, as well as present technological advances and superiority of the Italian marquee.

Participation in each of the series would also promote the company and bring Ferrari greater exposure in newer markets; increasing the company sales would be the result of the venture in each of the series, and an increase in revenue would benefit the team.

F1 is an exciting sport and it would be hurt with the departure of Ferrari. Their departure from the grid would also mean that F1 racing cathedrals such as Monza would disappear due to the lack of fans. Yet this is a reality that the FIA does not have to worry about yet.

While the 2010 rules and regulations are being discussed and Ferrari’s involvement in F1 remains, the Scuderia should not be foreign to the idea of involvement in other series. As a wise man once said think outside the box, or in Ferrari’s case, the box stall.

Predicting the Unpredictable or What To Look Forward to in 2010

Pawel Hyrkiel — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 06:21:52 -0400

A traveller once called their corporate travel agent to inquire on flights. Upon finding out that there is no space on the desired flight the traveller then asked for the travel agent to predict if any space will become available between the time of the call and the time of travel.

The travel agent advised the traveller that this is impossible to predict, and after putting down the phone joked with her co-workers about purchasing the crystal ball over the next few weeks.

Questions such as what may or may not happen or what the future may bring are not too un-common and while it is often impossible to predict it is exciting to contemplate on where this path or that one might be headed.

If one were to attempt to predict the season to come in Formula I the request would verge on the edge of being deemed insane, as not even a current season can be predicted; if an average fan were to look at any season for proof of this then 2009 would be the key candidate.

Brawn leading championship, Red Bull challenging, Ferrari and Mclaren failing to shine, and Bourdais being sacked before the season is through; it is as unpredictable as a drunk man’s actions, well, at least all of the above minus the Bourdais part.

F1 is quite unpredictable, hence the idea of even attempting to chart the 2010 season in 2009 is irrational, insane, yet at the same time interesting and quite tempting.

2009 can still bring quite a few dramas, and throw in a few twists and turns. Yet like it or not the 2009 season will see the crowning of the first non-manufacturer champion since 1998, and the first non-Renault non-McLaren non-Ferrari champion since 1997 and if Williams is included, since 1995.

The landscape of F1 has been dominated by large teams for quite some time now; if a fan is to look at the championships for the '90s and the '00s, McLaren has taken three championships, Williams five, Ferrari eight, Benetton two, and Renault two.

The '80s proved even more predictable as only Ferrari, Williams, and McLaren shared in the glory of winning championships. The numbers are staggering, only three teams stand on the same level, while the others quibble and fight over the crumbs.

While fans of Ferrari and McLaren may be disappointed by their team’s failure, F1 is proving to be quite interesting and unpredictable. Sadly with the suspension of midseason testing there is no possibility of either team taking the crown at this point.

As a result what Michael Schumacher achieved on his own in the final few seasons of his career, and what the FIA hoped to prevent, has been repeated due to the rules and decisions introduced by that very same body, the FIA.

Teams are now switching their focus to the 2010 season seeing that to catch up to Brawn or Red Bull is proving ever more impossible from week to week. The domination by both teams has secured the very reality that by Mid August only two teams will be challenging for the crown.

It was not long ago that entering August of the F1 calendar meant that Ferrari had clinched the constructor’s championship, while Michael Schumacher the driver’s.

The outcome of the 2004 season is now being repeated in 2009; in 2004 the final standings were the result of a combination of driver and car superiority brought about by years of development, while in 2009 that driver and car superiority combines for success on track because of rules and regulations.

It can not be denied that Brawn and Red Bull have brought to the F1 grid impressive packages capable of taking both crowns, however the introduction of new rules regarding how a car is to be built has erased all achievement and development to date and put everyone on even level.

This ruling, comparable to a safety car session during an F1 race, has forced all the teams to abandon previously developments and start from square one. It has turned the F1 world upside down, while at the same time providing for some interesting drama and changes to the plot.

When one looks towards the 2010 campaign will similar surprises be thrown in, or will we see Brawn and Red Bull dominate while the rest of the grid works to catch up? Will there be an F1 grid? Will a new comer such as USF1 take the crown? Will we see a woman racer in F1? How will the cars look like? Who will run F1?

2010 will see F1 take to the gird with a few new comers. Among the new comers will be USF1. In 2008 the project was announced to the public and while it is an exciting proposal it is quite unlikely that they will challenge for the crown.

It certainly is possible that 2010 might be a repeat of 2009, and a new comer will achieve what Brawn GP has done in their first year, the possibility of such an outcome is highly unlikely.

BMW, Ferrari, McLaren will fight tooth and nail to return to their winning ways. Massa’s performance in Germany has proven that Ferrari is already on their way up, and as the Scuderia switches its resources to the 2010 car they will be tough to beat.

McLaren has already shown that their car can match the Brawns in practice sessions, and as the Hungarian GP approaches they are targeting a podium finish already.

The 2010 season is quite some time off from the Hungarian Grand Prix; however what happens in 2009 will most likely impact the following season.

The Concorde agreement is not yet signed and the rules for 2010 are not written in stone, however for the rules to dictate another radical development in car design would be quite unwise. Unless the 2009 rules are overturned the 2010 cars will most likely be refined versions of their 2009 predecessors.

Certainly some teams will leave various designs behind, but the look of the cars will remain quite similar. The design of the 2009 cars has been well received, minus the front wing, and the cars are not only fast but also exciting to watch.

With F1 being in cost-saving mode the idea of changing the rules pertaining to design of the cars would be ridiculous; it would be easier and cheaper to refine the designs rather than to throw away all R&D for a second season in a row.

What may not be present in 2010, regardless of the R&D money spent, is the large “snow-plow” like front wing. The reason for its introduction was sound, however in the twenty first century the result could have been achieved with a sexier design.

The wing has also been the culprit of some of this season’s shunts, and drivers such as Robert Kubica have questioned how one can get closer wheel to wheel racing with a wing that is wider than the actual car. IT is quite possible that the wing design of 2009 may join KERS in the graveyard of failed ideas.

An idea that could prove exciting and viable in 2010 is the introduction of a female racer. It has been decades since a female racer took to the F1 grid. With the introduction of a few new teams to the grid in 2010 seats will become available to just about anyone.

The USF1 team could bring excitement to the sport not only because they are an American outfit entering the sport, but also because they could bring Danica Patrick along for the ride. Danica has said that she has yet to be approached, and this may never come to fruition, but it is an interesting idea.

A female driver in F1 would increase the sport’s popularity, which over the last two seasons has grown significantly. A female in the sport would also make it really 21st century.

The possibility of a female F1 driver being reality can be quickly dismissed if one recalls Bernie Ecclestone’s comments that women should be all dressed in white like all other domestic appliances. Perhaps with the exit of Max and the inevitable exit of Bernie this can become a reality.

Bernie knows a thing or two about increasing the profit and success of F1, and sooner or later he is bound to realize the potential of a female racer. Bernie, however, is old, and like Max Moseley, he is bound to call it quits.

Max Moseley will most likely be replaced by Jean Todt. Jean will bring with him the support of most likely the French and Italian representations to the FIA, the French because of his nationality, but Italian because of his involvement with Ferrari. Jean will most likely also get the support of the Max supporters.

Max Mosley will not stand for re-election in October; however, his support within the organization has been strong. In backing the Frenchman, Max has undoubtedly guaranteed the support of his followers. Jean Todt would be a good choice as he is strong, comes with a multitude of experience, and bears the character of a leader.

Max is departing, but what of Bernie. He is likely to retire as well, but before that he must begin training his successor. F1 is what it is because of Bernie, and becoming Bernie will not happen overnight.

The next person to take the reigns will not be a clone of Bernie and will run things differently, but he or she will need to pick up where Bernie has left things, and he or she will need to be trained to some extent. F1 would be very lucky to have someone such as Ron Dennis take up Bernie’s place.

Ron has left F1 behind just this year and while he may have already been absent a few months his mind has not grown duller, and should the job become available, tomorrow or the next week he would be more than able to keep up with the fast moving pace of the sport.

Thus there are the predictions for 2010, Jean Todt as the new Max Mosley, Ron Dennis the new Bernie, maybe a woman driver or two, 2010 cars being not dramatically different but evolved versions of their 2009 predecessors, and more importantly a full grid in 2010.

1997 Jerez Incident: As Boring As Ross Repeating “We Were on a Break”

Pawel Hyrkiel — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:41:09 -0400

In the long months of winter, separating season ending race from the first one of the new season, avid Formula One fans search for even the smallest connection to the sport.

With no teams located in North America, Africa, Asia, Oceania, or South America, and the test tracks used by F1 squads being located exclusively in Europe, fans of the sport outside of Europe are forced to rely on limited exposure to the sport. Unless a fan has much vacation, money, the opportunity to visit a test session for a weekend is like an unrealizable dream.

The windows into that magical winter session are random F1 updates from tests, interviews with team members, and to some such windows are too opaque, too random, too spaced out. Even in midseason, the windows called grand prix races are too spaced.

For those seeking a deeper insight into F1s world the wait for the next season, or even those seeking to occupy their time between each grand prix with more F1, those seeking to add to the already three dimensional perception of a sport, DVDs and books are really the only avenue.

While the quality of the DVDs and their subject matter addressed is often better from one year to the next, books tend to provide a deeper insight into the sport, history, and business of Formula One.

F1 books can be written on so many pages, in so many words, but the actual ideas that they try to get across are much deeper, and can often address something more than visible at first sight.

In the last year there have been several books available to the fans on the bookstore shelves that have brought their readers an insight on many subjects of F1.

New books are released almost every month, and thus some of them may have sat on the shelf of that Chapters, that Indigo, Borders, Virgin, HMV, or many other book stores; sometimes the story from season gone by is much more insightful on the past, present, and future, than those published at a later time.

There have been five titles in particular that have addressed specific subjects of F1 that have brought their readers closer to the sport.

The Mechanic’s Tale – Life in the Pit-Lanes of Formula One
Author: Steve Matchett
Published in: 1999

Steve Matchett is best known as the F1 reporter, the lucky, Formula One Fans watching Speed Channel’s F1 transmission of each Grand Prix. During the 2007 and 2008 seasons he hosted RPM - Racing per Matchett, available to F1 fans on Speed channel.

Before becoming involved with Speed he spent 20years in the engineering business, working as a qualified mechanic for both Ferrari and BMW, before joining the Benetton Grand Prix team.

From 1990 to his departure from the team he participated in exactly 100 Grand Prix for Benetton, which culminated in Michael Schumacher winning the F1 Drivers’ Championship in 1994 and 1995, and the Constructors’ Championship in 1995 alone.

The Mechanic’s Tale is not Steve’s first book; it is a follow up to his very successful book, Life in the Fast Lane. That particular book dealt with Benetton’s second most successful season to date, 1994, as well as the drama and tragedy that surrounded the motor sport.

While that book gave the reader an insight of the frantic and unending behind-the-scenes activity in the effort to be fastest and the best in the world, the second book in the three book series replicates the superb writing style while not repeating what has already been written.

The Mechanic’s Tale is an autobiography of a portion of his life, taking the reader on a compelling journey giving the reader eye-witness views of the great drivers, including Schumacher, Senna, Mansell, Prost, and many more.

The key personalities of Benetton are not omitted, and for the first time the reader is given an insight look on what it took for the small outfit to win three World Championships.

Steve does not skip any of the important portions of his life, as well as occurrences in Benetton’s career. His work as an engineer and pit crew member provides the reader with an educated look on the technical aspects of F1 through the seasons.

His writing fluid style makes the book an enjoyable read and a combination of the subject matter as well as that style makes the book a page turner.

David Coulthard The Autobiography – It is what it is
Author: David Coulthard
Published in: 2007

David Coulthard is the fifth highest points scoring Formula One driver of all time, having won 13 grand prix and enjoyed 61 podiums in his career in excess of 200 races. David left his job of F1 driver behind, retiring at the end of a long career which, while successful in several areas never culminated in a world championship.

David will be missed on the F1 grid by some and not really missed by others, however while he no longer occupies place in a cockpit, his presence remains felt as he reports for the BBC.

In the last few years books about current and past champions were written and published, and while David Coulthard’s career may have not been a stellar one, a book written about him and by him makes for a fascinating year.

It is what it is does not cut any corners, and David writes as if he were chatting with the reader at a pub.

The chapters in the book are not lengthy making it easier to read, and engage the reader without boring him with long repetitive entries. Like David Coulthard, his autobiography is straight to the point, and often as a result enjoyable and comic.

His description of the flight that nearly ended his life some years ago turns from sadness to a laughable subject when he describes being asked by airport authorities after climbing out of the still smoking wreck in France.

He addresses other matters, such as those covered in the tabloids throughout his career, conflicts between himself and other drivers, and the most awaited subject of Coulthard vs. Hakkinen, Coulthard vs. McLaren, Coulthard vs. Ron Dennis, and Coulthard vs. Coulthard, one and the same subject.

David Coulthard’s book could have been written to make David out to be an innocent and misunderstood racer whose career success was robbed of him and he now demands justice.

While David does make factually backed accusations against his previous employer McLaren, he is neither unfair, nor insulting; that subject matter, touched upon in many of his interviews has not been used by David as an excuse.

In his autobiography David shows he is not vengeful or bitter but understands the actions of certain persons while not agreeing with them.

The book is a surprising find in any bookstore and with each new re-read brings a smile to the reader’s lips

Michael Schumacher – The Edge of Greatness
Author: James Allen
Published in: 2007

Michael Schumacher has been described by many as a misunderstood, ignorant, brilliant, arrogant, best ever, and simply lucky driver.

The facts, however, do not lie; typing in Michael Schumacher into Google search will bring up a Wikipedia page on the driver citing details of his life, and successes as well as controversies; should one look up driver records the Name Michael Schumacher will appear on many of the records at the top step or in the top three. The fans that do not like Ferrari or Michael tend to still respect his achievements.

Michael came into F1 at a time when the sport was changing; his achievements span the time period preceding the major changes and in the sport as well as the time period in the seasons post those changes.

His actions in 1994 and 1997 are a remnant of that old style of racing, and while it looks inexcusable at this time at some point in history it would have been.

It is still a fresh subject to address, but James Allen pulls no punches when he describes Michael Schumacher’s drive to achieve the extraordinary in Michael Schumacher – The Edge of Greatness.

His book on Mr. Schumacher describes the price that Michael and the three teams, he has occupied in his F1 career, had to pay to achieve greatness.

Ayrton Senna once said that “Nice Men don’t win,” and James Allen never tries to paint a picture of a nice man in his book. Mr. Allen addresses much of the misconception about Michael; Michael was not born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and James Allen never shows Michael as a person that had this silver spoon nor as a person that was mistreated; Michael has worked to achieve his position and that is what James Allen has shown him as.

In The Edge of Greatness, James Allen addresses many aspects of his career painting a clearer picture of Michael through the years, and Michael at this very moment.

Michael has never been a flashy individual with in the spotlight of the media, and often he has been seen as a quiet and private individual, and James Allen allows the reader to gain an insightful look at the life and personality of Schumacher.

The book deals with the bright and dark moments of Michael’s career. Like in David’s book that addressed the greatest conflict of his career between him and McLaren, James Allen does not shy away from the subject of the 1997 crash between Michael Schumacher and Jacques Villeneuve.

The dramatic incident changed F1, and while the media has always made Michael out to be the criminal in the incident, few have bothered to look at the whole picture.

The fans of F1 can relate to followers of the high profile television show Friends; Ross Gellar’s constant repetition of “WE were on a break,” when someone questions why he cheated on Rachael Green is tiring and frustrating. The repetitive mention on the subject of 1997 Jerez almost mirrors Ross Gellar’s annoying excuse.

1997 Jerez incident is a dark part of the career, and James Allen makes no excuse on behalf of Michael Schumacher, but in addressing the subject from a new point of view allows for an insightful look into why what happened really happened, and what was overlooked by those that quickly crucified Michael and Ferrari.

James Allen has worked in Formula One since 1990. His father Bill raced for Lotus at Le Mans in the early 1960s and was in the sport's administration, on the RAC motor sports council. Allen started his F1 career with the Brabham team in 1990 and in 1991 worked with future TV colleagues Mark Blundell and Martin Brundle.

He was news editor at Autosport magazine from 1992 to 1994 and in parallel worked as F1 pit lane reporter for American network ESPN from 1993 to 1996. With Nigel Mansell's move to Indy Car in 1993, Allen was hired by ITV in 1994 to help present coverage of the season.

When ITV gained the rights to broadcast the Formula One championship in 1997, he joined the team as pit lane reporter.

James Allen has written a very enjoyable book that is an interesting and insightful read.

Should any fan gain an insight on his life, this is highly recommended book, especially as it is written by a sport insider, and a member of the most ruthless wing of the F1 media, one that is willing to crucify a British driver once and vindicate him the next race.

Chequered Conflict
Author: Maurice Hamilton
Published in: 2008

The conflict between team mates Hamilton and Alonso is still quite fresh in the minds of many F1 people. In the eyes of the majority of people Alonso was to blame not only for the presence of the conflict, but also for the loss of both championships.

Yet while that conflict is quite fresh because not even two full seasons have passed, the other conflict between team mates described in Chequered Conflict, has been forgotten by the younger generation.

Maurice Hamilton describes in his book how even the passing of the decades does not affect the essence of the sport.

Maurice makes comparisons between two seasons, seasons that while set apart in decades can easily resemble each other; in both instances the squabbling between two team mates has resulted in the loss of championships.

In 2007 Kimi Raikkonen helped Ferrari clinch their first constructors’ championship since 2004 and take also the Drivers’ crown fro himself as McLaren self destructed from within; in 1986 the same occurred as Mansell and Piquet, both racing for Williams, battled between each other as Prost took the crown and so did McLaren.

Maurice Hamilton has been the Observer's motor racing correspondent since 1990. A published author, he can also be heard on BBC Radio Five Live as their formula one summariser. He is an award winning motor sport journalist who has written several successful books on the subject of F1.

Maurice in this case has chosen to address a subject previously untouched, and while in the past Maurice has addressed the subject of what is wrong with Fernando Alonso, in Chequered Conflict he gives a very “neutral” point of view.

His “neutral” point of view can not be truly neutral because the media can only build their articles based on information provided and not given.

The British media, while often brutal when addressing Button’s performance, Lewis’ poor showing, however it becomes nationalistic when it comes to the type of conflict that occurred between Alonso and McLaren, and Alonso and Lewis; the same occurs in Italy, Spain, Germany, Canada, etc.

When the conflict within McLaren did take place the articles and opinions written were based on what information is provided willingly or can be wrestled out of their mouths and minds, and it became difficult to gain a truly neutral picture of the situation.

What Maurice Hamilton has done when addressing both conflicts in his book is collect all the information that was available to him, and present it to the reader including some interpretation based on his years of involvement in motorsports.

Because the information is incomplete due to choice to maintain the privacy by McLaren, Lewis, and Alonso, Maurice like the reader the picture of the 2007 conflict remains somewhat incomplete. Even 23 years later the reader still is kept outside the inner circle of Williams and why it all went wrong in 1986 is still a mystery.

While Maurice never points a finger at any one person, in the book he seems to imply that really all the parties are to blame.

Pride and ego in both cases was not put aside and the larger picture not looked at; championships could have been won, but it was one driver or the other that wanted to bring that glory home, and thus they both squandered their possibility, their potential.

Chequered Conflict is not an easy read; there are parts that flow quickly and others that require re-reading to gather the complete picture, and however such is the style of Maurice’s writing. Maurice requires that the reader consider the situation and outcome, and at times really question the situation.

What the book tends to show is that not every person reacts properly under pressure, and so where Lewis has kept his cool Alonso was made out to be the criminal in the eyes of the media, of the fans.

The failure to keep his cool, to become the villain, in the end has had the opposite effect because Alonso continues to race unaffected by the fallout of that 2007 chequered conflict, while McLaren followers still bear a grudge against the Spaniard. Where the seasons differ is that Piquet still remains bitter about that fateful season.

Jackie Stewart – Winning is not Enough
Author: Jackie Stewart
Published in: 2007

Dyslexic, Champion, F1 safety promoter, F1 safety founder, father, Team Owner, F1 pilot, shooting champion, Ford test driver; the list of identifying factors can go on for several paragraphs, and these will all describe Jackie Stewart.

The Triple F1 champion has achieved much in his life, and each year the list of achievements stretches out further and further.

Reading Jackie Stewart – Winning is not Enough, is a learning experience; his book is an F1 book, but it is also much more. The book covers Jackie Stewart’s career prior to Motor racing, as well as involvement within and outside the sport since his early departure following tragedy.

The book is extremely well written and like its subject and author it is three dimensional in many aspects. Winning is not Enough demonstrates that the road to F1 is not a quick an easy path, and some of the difficulties in reaching this sport have remained constant since the fifties and sixties until today, while some have been truly eliminated in the twenty first century.

The book is far more than an autobiographical piece about one man’s F1 career; the lessons Jackie Stewart has learned in his career he attempts to pass on to the reader so as to apply towards every situation in life.

Jackie Stewart was the first F1 involved driver to realize that a successful champion must be successful in various aspects. In the book Jackie shows that a successful champion is not just concerned about winning, that there is something more too achieving victory, and that this formula can and should be applied to life itself.

Jackie addresses being able to communicate, understand, and much more. Jackie Stewart is proud of his achievements and while this pride is felt in his words that he has chosen for the book, he does not come across as an individual that is arrogant and full of himself.

Jackie Stewart is an interesting individual and his character translates in the pages of the book; the paragraphs often bring smiles, tears, and understanding of how decisions made, and various events in life can affect many lives or just one.

As the book has been written by someone present in the sport in one way or another, as well as an understanding of F1 a clear cut and apolitical image of many situations is presented. Jackie Stewart does include much of his personal life details which many autobiography writers have conveniently chosen to omit in their books.

Moreover Jackie Stewart, unlike many autobiography authors does present views of the opposition, and in a calm manner he demonstrates why the decision was what it was.

Perhaps it is his understanding of being respectful of others; perhaps it is simply his character as Jackie Stewart that he is not insulting to even his opposition. The respectful view of even his greatest opposition is visible in his description of dealing with Ford; attempt to introduce safety measures, and relationships between himself and Ferrari.

The book features a very extensive description of F1 and Jackie Stewart’s life through the decades. It is not a small book by page count, however by page 535, it is a shame that that it comes to an end.

Jackie Stewart’s ability to write and fluid autobiography displays yet another one of his many talents, and poses the question why Jackie could not write more of the F1 books.

The Friday "Test" Sessions: Art Imitating Life

Pawel Hyrkiel — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:52:40 -0400

The 2009 season has brought about quite a few surprises to the previously almost predictable results. Certainly Vettel dominating Monza in 2008 was unforeseen, however over the last few seasons the championship was dominated by two teams, and in the last decade Ferrari was either winning or challenging for the championship.

The absence of a championship winning or even race leading Ferrari, McLaren’s inconsistency, Renault’s failures, and Red Bull’s incredible development and on track speed, and Brawn’s spectacular consistency and superior performance, have been responsible for a growth in Formula 1 fan base.

What Lewis Hamilton’s presence in the sport has done in the last two years has been built on by Brawn GP’s resurgence.

Brawn’s elevation in the championship and the top teams’ demotion has benefited the sport in viewer ship numbers, and because of the support of Ferrari, McLaren, Renault, and Sauber, fans their demotion from the top spots of the F1 grid has not resulted in loss of that particular fan base.

F1s decision to make their cars “clean” by doing away with aerodynamic devices, addition of a snowplough like front wing, and narrow yet tall rear wing, adaptation of common devices, and many other changes in the sport have resulted in the current F1 championship standing.

The championship leaders of this season are different than those of years past, and with each week it becomes absolutely obvious that none of the big three will win the constructor championship. While the leaders are different the situation is a repeat of seasons gone by.

At the time that Ross Brawn, the current Brawn GP team owner, was part of Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro, fans were leaving F1 behind and calling the sport boring simply because of the team’s incredible dominance.

That dominance has yet again been repeated, and what FIA has tried to achieve by introducing new rules and regulations pertaining to car design, has been done away by the rules and regulations of the 2009 season.

F1 has tried to become far more popular, while at the same time becoming far less costly; both can perhaps be achieved in the long run, but the 2009 season is demonstrating that the two ideas do not go hand in hand.

F1 has always been considered the pinnacle of engineering, and in the last few years it has attempted to maintain that position in the racing world while lowering the operating costs. Rules introduced for the 2009 season and proposed for the subsequent seasons were written in to try and start a process of bringing the costs of F1 down.

Among those rules is rule 22.1.b, “no competitor may carry out more than 15,000km of track testing during a calendar year,” and 22.1.c, “no track testing may take place between the start of the week preceding the first Event of the Championship and 31 December of the same year.”

The rules were introduced to help F1 become much more economical, and to create a very competitive atmosphere.

The teams agreed to the implementation of the rules, and in the beginning of the season their introduction was not questioned. Testing, however, has been an integral part of the actual sport, and its presence in F1 guaranteed that if engineers of a specific F1 car had chosen to follow the “wrong” design avenue those “errors” could be reversed.

Following a different avenue of design can mean a difference between winning a championship and losing it, and while it is possible to narrow the gaps between those two types of teams, an F1 team needs some kind of “laboratory” or testing ground.

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has been used for quite some time, but this technological solution can not replicate exactly how a specific design solution on a car will affect the car’s performance, and neither can computer simulations, or rolling roads. In reality running actual tests on the cars at tracks can not be replaced.

Yes the tests are expensive, and yes each Grand Prix weekend features several practice sessions that can be used as actual test sessions, but a team can not really run lap after lap featuring new and different innovation with hopes that proper data will be collected to support the introduction of a specific new design solution.

Practice sessions at these races are run to prepare the car for that very race, not for the next few grand prix.

F1 teams need test sessions to give young talent an opportunity to gain valuable experience; more importantly they need test sessions throughout the season to help bridge the gap between the front runners and those in the back.

Offering teams the opportunity to run cars with new innovations would help a team like Renault to figure out if the “trick-diffuser” will work before transporting it to the race where it fails and causes sufficient damage to the car on a Friday session and hence prevent the team from giving Fernando Alonso the opportunity to prepare his car for the Qualifying session and race.

Taking Fernando Alonso out of the equation for the Friday session lowers Renault’s exposure, hence affecting fan presence in the stands, and sponsors do not have an opportunity to have their advertisement presented, hence resulting in potential income loss.

The lack of an opportunity to test the introduction of new items prior to a grand prix also affects the level of competition and viewer ship figures. Brawn GP and Red Bull have designed superior cars to really anyone on the grid; matching their performance is possible and would be in the best interests of the sport.

While some hardcore fans will continue watching the sport even after the championship is decided just past midseason, quiet a lot of fans will hardly see the point of rising each morning to watch yet another blow-out victory.

If there is no possibility of matching the performances of the top two teams then the rest will no longer try to win and concentrating their development efforts on the 2010 car. The championship, hence, will become a two horse race and second place is the first of the losers.

Had the test rule not been written in F1 would still be costly, however it is possible that by race two or three Brawn GP would be enjoying healthy competition from the rest. IT is possible that Brawn GP, too, would make further steps in their development and the season would look identical to what it is right now.

It is not possible to predict the outcome should the rules look different; however as seen in seasons past it is quite possible that Ferrari, McLaren, BMW, Toyota, Williams could indeed be fighting for podiums and not just the rare points.

The competition character of the 2009 season can not be salvaged at this point, but the FIA needs to seriously consider what decision is both proper and beneficial to the existence and success of its flagship brand.

Sometimes spending more money on a larger carton at the super market can be more beneficial in the long run. With the upcoming 2010 season the FIA should perhaps re-write some of those articles, and if indeed the FOTA creates a breakaway series of their own they can learn from the FIA’s mistakes.

Some people say that are imitates life. The unforeseen impact of FIA’s decision to abandon specific rules on F1, such as mid season testing, mirrors the impact of abandoning practice sessions on the outcome of actual races.

Rule Changes, Controversy, Civil War, F1 Marks Its Return To The Sport Stage

Pawel Hyrkiel — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:51:51 -0400

Going into the 2009 season all the Formula 1 fans were anticipating the close battle between the Scuderia Ferrari and Team Vodafone McLaren, at no point was there a consideration that a team such as Brawn or Toro Rosso might rule the championship outright by mid season.

The elevation of both previously struggling teams was a fresh sight for the sport, bringing back memories of an era gone by, an era when Lotus challenged the established marquees such as Ferrari or Maseratti.

While several teams begun voicing their objections to the technological modifications made to the Brawn cars, by the fourth race of the season just as many teams begun to consider relocating their resources to the development of the 2010 car.

Going into the 2009 season the fans as well as team owners were looking forward to a sport dominated season. While the Australia-gate or Lewis lie-gate did come up as an issue at the season’s start, it was considered a minor blotch that would soon be forgotten.

Rectified by actions and inactions of team Vodafone McLaren, the matter was quickly dealt with and the sport proceeded into the future, minus Ron Dennis.

The departure of the major figurehead from McLaren was not visible, and had a fan started following the British equippe’s season, following the shocker, he or she would hardly notice that a different individual had held the post that Martin Whitmarsh now occupied just a fortnight ago; nonetheless even the most hardcore of the Tifosi would certainly miss the strong adversary of the Scuderia.

Any F1 fan, whether it was that hardcore Tiffosi, or a supporter of BMW, Honda, Force India, was glad to see this matter resolved quickly and the sport get back to being a sport.

That identity seemed to have been overshadowed in the past by a multitude of lawsuits and disagreements ranging from the Stepney-gate to McLaren-gate to Button-gate.

The one individual looking to minimize further embarrassments was no doubt, Bernie Ecclestone. His divorce made world news quite recently, and each new case involving F1 has made harder his attempt to present the motorsport as a completion with a “golden” image.

The image would be dirtied yet again, not through the breach of rules by any team, or cheating allegations, or contractual matters. The image of F1 has been tarnished by what can be described as Civil War or mutiny.

On one side of the wall stands the FOTA. The Formula One Teams Association (FOTA) is a group of Formula One teams that was formed at a meeting in Maranello on 29 July 2008.

The association, directed by the president of Ferrari, Luca Cordero di Montezemolo, consists of all teams competing in the 2009 Formula one season.

On the other side of the imaginary wall stands one individual, Max Mosley. Max, or Max Rufus Mosley, born 13 April 1940, is president of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), a non-profit association that represents the interests of motoring organizations and car users worldwide. The FIA is also the governing body for Formula One and other international motorsports.

Bernie Ecclestone is directly involved due to his status as the primary authority of Formula One.

Bernard Charles "Bernie" Ecclestone, born 28 October 1930, is a billionaire sports entrepreneur, as president and CEO of Formula One Management and Formula One Administration and through his part-ownership of Alpha Prema, the parent company of the Formula One Group of companies.

As of 2008 FOTA has had an impact on passing the rules on how the sport should look like in the seasons to come. While some of the decisions made have benefitted one team or another and did not help the others, the FOTA members implemented these decisions in hopes of strengthening the image, character, and essence of the sport.

While the teams may have disagreed on issues such as “trick-diffusers” or “twin diffusers”, the FOTA has worked quite well together. The co-operation of the FOTA members not only served to make the sport beneficial to all members of the grid, but it also created a strong unity between the members.

In the past when issues such as a breakaway series came up there were obvious visible divisions between the teams, and so this project was easily dispatched by Bernie and Max.

With the 2009 season in full swing the team principals began working on the proposed rules for 2010. Costs saving measures were proposed, changes to the sport, such as the medal system, were quietly written in, and the idea of a twin level championship as well as a budget cap was floated.

Floated may be a proper word for the first part, the twin championship system was completely opposed and so this proposal seems to have been withdrawn. The budget cap on one hand has threatened the very existence of the sport.

A budget cap is a method that companies or sporting leagues attempt to level out the playing field. In baseball it works, as it does in hockey, football (grid-iron); in F1 this idea is quite absurd.

F1 is money driven sport; combined spending costs on ticket, hotels, swag, team budgets, entry fees, racetrack fees, could put the budget of a small African country to shame. The sport itself spends a lot of money because there are entertainment factors, matters of advertising, running the entire circus, paying for television rights, and a million other costs.

At no point is Bernie told that he needs to curb down spending; if he believes this needs to be changed or that changed then the follow up question is not why but instead how soon and how is it to be different.

F1 seems to run based on the motto established by the Roman legions; if it is possible it is done, if it is impossible it will be done.

Teams spend a lot of money, because to stay competitive you need to constantly develop technologies. To develop technology you need to pay for the raw materials needed to produce an item, the salaries of those working on the item beign produced, the equipment needed to produce the item, the delivery costs, and this is just a generic list.

Furthermore who knows if the first item that has been researched will work as its intended to; another list is made.

In an environment where the first item costs this much and the next even more, in an environment where the practicality of a development and its success is paramount saving costs can only be taken to some extent.

F1 developments affect the performance as well as the safety of a car, and the moment you cut costs either one will be affected. Safety tends to be a priority, thus performance would most certainly be affected.

In setting up a salary cap F1 would lose its designation as the technological marvel, or the symbol of a marriage between the ultimate technological achievement and utterly competitive sport.

Race teams building Lemans prototypes would easily and quickly scoop up the workforce in search of the next technologically free and liberal utopia.

The view of the budget cap being an oppressive system may be influenced by a misunderstanding of how a budget cap would affect the sport, and a budget cap would perhaps indeed improve racing by leveling the playing field and bringing in more competition.

If the issue with the budget cap is that teams spend without accountability could teams not present their budget, which would then remain frozen for the upcoming season, to the FIA prior to the start of that season? That would become a budget cap, and other teams would be authorized to match it. Should they not be able to afford it the FIA would help with the financing?

Yes money does not grow on trees, however over the span of the season the FIA collects fines and such.

Investing to increase the value or even paying them out directly would help with the budget of a team; it is probably unimaginable how much of a return that 100 million fine that McLaren paid could have brought, had Bernie invested it into an ING savings account.

This proposal would not end there. The new teams would be given a deadline to rise up the ranks.

I am not talking of becoming the new Ferrari or BMW, or McLaren, but if Brawn could do it in such a short time, than five years is plenty, unless the team is called Toyota of course.

This “wonderful” idea is as probable to work as a 45 million dollar budget cap. Stranger things have however worked. What the budget cap issue and its outcome on F1 seems to address is a matter of contractual agreement.

Members of the FOTA minus Williams and Force India, who were suspended due to their decision to enter the 2010 championship, have made it clear that they are pulling out of the sport and setting up their own F1 style series.

This decision is the result of the unwavering decision by Max Moseley to impose a budget cap. Bernie Ecclestone argues that three of the teams threatening to break away from F1, Scuderia Toro Rosso, Red Bull, and Ferrari, are contractually obligated to compete next year as entrants in F1 and cannot leave the sport.

According to Bernie and Max they have signed agreements guaranteeing participation in the sport in 2010 and beyond. The key question here is whether the contract is still in place or is null void because of the changes in the rules.

As complicated as contracts pay seems in the end the very nature of any contract is simple. If a person playing for a hockey team signs a contract, the contract remains valid unless a change is made.

The change in a contract can be considered a breach. Breach of contract is a legal concept in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance.

A fundamental breach (or repudiatory breach) is a breach so fundamental that it permits the aggrieved party to terminate performance of the contract, in addition to entitling that party to sue for damages.

In other words if Ferrari, STR, and Red Bull all signed a contract based on rules of agreed upon at the time of the signing and the rules were then changed than that contract is not valid.

In lawyer speak, a violation of the terms of a legal agreement; Default. Breach of contract allows the non-breaching party to rescind the contract, sue for damages, or sue for performance of the contract.

It is quite simple really. If a tenant agrees to lease at a specific address at a rate of one thousand per month, and then a year later the rent is now two thousand per month, then the agreement signed does not match the current circumstance and so as a result the contract is null void.

If however the contract calls for freedom by the landlord to modify the rules of the lease at any time without affecting the validity of the lease then the tenant has never had any legal experience, has been scammed, and must follow established rules for breaking the lease.

Ferrari, Scuderia Toro Rosso, and Red Bull most certainly have employed an army of lawyer to scrupulously review the contract to benefit their future, and find loopholes that can in the future be maximized to their benefit.

The key question thus arises; what are the details of the contracts signed by the three teams? Do they allow the FIA free reign as long as their hides are protected? While Ferrari, as a result of beign the first to sign, was given greater income than other teams, it is naive to assume that the Scuderia would agree to such an option.

Moreover STR and Red Bull, not being given special privileges undoubtedly agreed to the contract of future co-operation based on rules established at that time, not on those changed a million times since.

It would be almost helpful to the situation if the actual contracts signed were presented not in the words of each party, but rather in its original form so that the public would be aware of what indeed was signed. Until that contract remains in its “safe” the public can rely on he said type information.

At this time a solution is needed and quickly so that the sport can continue being a sport and fans view of F1 is not tarnished further.

The simple solution to the problem would perhaps be to allow the teams to start their own series and let the season run its course. This solution will never work, because there is too much money at stake and too many egos as well.

At the beginning of the season we saw Ron Dennis abandon his already limited number of duties at McLaren, and leave his post at F1. Mr. Dennis walks away with much pride, respect, and a head held up high knowing that he leaves his team which will continue to achieve further greatness after his departure and perhaps because of it as well.

Ron’s departure came at a time when McLaren were facing yet another situation where their credibility was being questioned and the team faced a threat of an impending fine or exclusion.

Any negotiator will tell you that a gesture of goodwill is key in high pressure situations. Ron Dennis’ departure not only served to guarantee a new era of cooperation between team McLaren, but also as a gesture of goodwill; one can almost imagine the FIA saying, “if Mr. Dennis does leave we will abandon any further inquiries, and he does leave on good terms rather than shamed yet again.”

When the current row between the FIA and the FOTA is examined the best outcome is that Max preserves his pride, his name, and bid an early goodbye.

Max Mosley has done great things for the sport over the decades; it would be a shame to remember Mr. Mosley as the destroyer of a racing tradition 60 years old, instead of the co-architect of the most successful business and motorsport co-venture.

Spock once said that “logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Perhaps it is time for Max to re-examine the timeless classic, “the Wrath of Khan.”

A Dark Future Or Smoky Past

Pawel Hyrkiel — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 01:08:38 -0500

Honda’s departure from the F1 grid this year is a wake up call; with the economy in its current state F1 experts tell us that Honda may be just one of the many teams that says goodbye to its Formula 1 fans.

This sad fact is a reminder of the current state of our economy, and it has apparently gotten the F1 minds thinking of how the business and sport can be saved. The seriousness of the situation is reflected in the appearance of the 2009 spec F1 cars.

Beauty and the exotics have been abandoned to save costs, and further changes are on the way.

The decision to follow through with the changes is being linked to the ever increasing costs of competing in the sport. When combined, driver salaries, development costs, maintenance costs, etc., ballooned the budgets of a truly competitive team to over 300 million. F1 costs would have continued to rise, and in the end we would have a Formula 1 comprised of two teams, Ferrari and Mclaren. Williams and Toyota could have probably lasted for a bit; Williams does have a racing heritage yet in the end without a major sponsor even they would have faltered; Toyota does have a large budget but even after spending hundreds of millions each year without producing results even they would have questioned their involvement in the sport. Then again retirements do happen even to McLaren and Ferrari so perhaps Toyota would squeeze in a race victory ever now and then.

The bottom line is that due to the nature of their main sponsors, or co-owners, only McLaren and Ferrari have the budgets that could make them competitive irregardless of the costs of the sport. Vodafone McLaren Mercedes and Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro are both co-owned by corporations that compete in industries that will never have to ask for a bailout or declare bankruptcy.

TAG, with links to military technologies, Bombardier and other aviation companies are a private holding company based in Luxembourg City, in southern Luxembourg. Although no longer owned by Techniques d'Avant Garde, TAG Heuer’s image and quality is the direct result of TAG’s reinvention of the Swiss chronograph maker in the mid eighties.

Named after Great Marlborough Street, Marlboro is a brand of cigarette made by Philip Morris. The company has sponsored Ferrari openly following the death of Enzo Ferrari, and as of 2005 the two have entered an agreement lasting until 2011 that will guarantee the Italian squad an income of 1 billion dollars. Philip Morris has also recorded a profit of 2.08 billion in 2007.

In examining these two teams it is quite apparent that their future is guaranteed, and as new changes are being introduced into F1 on a yearly basis a question has to be asked, was abandoning tobacco sponsorship in F1 the right solution.

Tobacco sponsorship was introduced to F1 by Lotus; the Red, Gold and White colors of the Imperial Tobacco's Gold Leaf brand first appeared in 1968 and within a matter of a season, teams, drivers and circuits of Formula One had become heavily dependent on the financial backing of the tobacco industry. While attempts were made to have F1 go cold turkey and part ways with tobacco sponsorship through the decades it would not be until the twenty first century that this came to a fruition, well almost.

In 2000, WilliamsF1 became the first major team to run without tobacco sponsorship, and McLaren have now replaced the West brand and no longer have any tobacco sponsors. Renault ended the deal with Mild Seven after the 2006 season. Ferrari on the other hand renewed their arrangements with Philip Morris in 2005, at a cost of one billion over the six years.

Smoking is a deadly habit; cigarette smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths, and smoking is responsible for about 87% of lung cancer deaths. These statistics merely begin to scratch the surface of the reality of how smoking affects us and those around us. While F1’s decision to abandon tobacco sponsorship altogether was the result of F1 being under threat of losing their television privileges should tobacco advertisement present, F1 teams would have loved to have had the steady income that Ferrari enjoys because of its partnership.

Had tobacco advertising still been around Takuma Sato would still be strapping into his Super Aguri, and Honda would have not had to search for a motto to replace an absent sponsor. Both Honda squads would still be preparing for the 2009 race, well perhaps; because there is an old saying, “if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.” Yes it is impossible to really predict where Honda would be today with a title sponsor present, however if we add up the facts the lack of a major influx of money has most likely led to the automakers decision to abandon the project.

If Honda is not a good example then examine the Grand Prix themselves; the hosts of the German GP are indicating that they may have to reconsider their future in F1 due to shortage of funding. The venue may go the way that the Canadian Grand Prix did; the last of the North American venues was cancelled due to lack of funds and high debt issue. The race had been held for three decades without facing this situation, a situation that may have arisen years ago following the cancellation of sponsorship by Players.

Years back the Montreal Grand Prix had nearly been cancelled; the main sponsor, John Players and Sons, was banned from open advertising their product, and as a result withdrew as the main sponsor of the event. At the time the government was willing to rescue an event that guaranteed a serious income for Montreal, but in 2008 the situation is quite different. The impending recession has forced companies and governments to reassess their budgets and spending.

Recession is not a new thing; in the last three decades we have had three recessions; governments have survived the recessions of 1974, 1980, and 1991, as has Formula 1. While governments are dealing with the recession and seem to have a plan F1 is not in the same boat, because they have never had to deal with a recession.

In 1974, 1980, and 1991, the number of cars surpassed places on the grid; three cars would compete for one spot for Sunday, and rules were pushed to a maximum and beyond to qualify for and win the race. There were so many teams because for every car there were two cigarette companies wanting to advertise their product.

Cigarette companies through the decades have not been affected by economic downturns; the sales of cigarettes do not decrease with the fall of the market, if anything it rises. Thus in 1974, 1980, 1991, an industry, a sport, dependent on a product that is highly profitable and sells well will not be affected by a recession.

I am sure when F1 teams made the decision to abandon tobacco advertisement they were not prepared for the economic downturn experienced in the last year, thus for the first time they are being introduced to the truth and results of a recession.

Many races and many more teams may falter before the sport itself is stabilized, and it may be long after the economic situation is, however at the same time it may be quicker.

Whatever the outcome of the economic situation in the world Formula 1 should consider the ban on tobacco advertisement.

Smoking is a dirty nasty habit that is expensive and deadly. It is dependent on a product that is marketed as a cool thing to have, and marketed on an idea that enjoying this product might make you cool.

Banning this product, this habit, has come a long way; in Ontario cigarettes can not be openly displayed on store shelves, and few magazines are permitted to advertise cigarettes. Yet there are still people that smoke; individuals are aware of the risks of smoking and do not quit because suddenly Marlboro country is no longer advertised at St. Clair and Yonge, or at 5th and Madison, or because the surgeon general’s warning is displayed in block letters.

F1 fans didn’t stop smoking West cigarettes because suddenly the ads were no longer present on the livery of the silver arrows. Those that smoke will smoke because they want to smoke, because to them this is an escape, it is something they like.

In the United States more than 100,000 U.S. deaths are caused by excessive alcohol consumption each year; youth who drink alcohol are 50 times more likely to use cocaine than those who never drink alcohol, yet nothing is done.

Alcohol is still advertised freely; TV, newspaper, internet, radio, and many other types of advertising media are visible to the every day person, and yet alcoholism is a medically recognized disease and cause of death. While F1 has dumped the tobacco ads it now advertises alcoholic beverages, with a minor warning, “enjoy responsibly.”

If F1 agrees to sponsoring one type of drug openly why does it frown upon the other? Those that oppose smoking will argue that tobacco companies have knowingly marketed a product that is addictive and destructive at the same time, but the same could be argued against alcohol.

Groups, the drinkers and the smokers tend to enjoy their product irregardless of the final results.

Those opposing smoking will also argue that F1 advertisement is based on advertisement of association; if I like BMW-Sauber then I will drive a BMW, and buy Intel, however if I like Ferrari I will only drive FIAT cars, travel to Abu Dhabi, subscribe to Alice, and smoke Marlboro along with my Martini. Such may be the case if you are someone in the higher echelons, because if you are in the middle class you dream of a BMW, you probably own a computer with Intel inside, drink whatever you like, and smoke whatever you like, if you smoke.

Today’s society is all about choice; yes you may like the Scuderia but drive a Mercedes; you drink Johnny Walker because you like it, and you smoke not because the billboard told you, but because you like the taste of it.

Regardless if a smoker or not, the optimistic people predict that we will be out of this recession shortly, however it may stretch for a while.

In the meantime the F1 fans keep checking the news hoping that their team will be on the grid in 2009 and 2010; hoping that their local race is not cancelled. The reality of the situation is that as more and more companies declare bankruptcy more sponsors are falling by the wayside; if this pattern does continue then Bernie needs to start looking at the future or rather the question of how survival of the sport can be guaranteed.

While moving the sport to new markets is part of a solution, the other part of the solution may be far simpler; if Philip Morris has been able to generate a profit of 2.08 billion amidst a year highlighted by a recession, then.

F1 fans will not start smoking Wests just because Hamilton promotes them, they will either stick with their Marleys or not pick one up at all, and besides nobody has advertised Gitanes in a while, but they did look cool in Ronin. Besides there have been worse decisions, like making a pact with Uncle Joseph back in the 40s.

Felipe Massa, Kimi Raikkonen: Ferrari Dominates Turkish Grand Prix

Pawel Hyrkiel — Mon, 12 May 2008 16:50:44 -0400

"If Heikki had not made that stop, he would have run longer than Felipe at the first stop. If he could have been close to Massa, which I think he could have been, he would have been able to take him at the first stop," Whitmarsh told reporters after the race.

"He really felt he could win this race, and as the race panned out, I think he knows he could have won it, and it eluded him. And that's disappointing."

The optimistic view of Heikki Kovalainen's was running rampant in the Mclaren camp, and judging on the performance of the silver arrows at the race, perhaps this was not far off from the reality.

The problem with the "what if" arguments is that they often do not take into account the reason for the situation at hand. As Heikki's dream of a maiden F1 victory was blown away at the first corner, so was his compatriot's chance at another victory of the season.

The coming together of the two Finns, one Heikki Kovalainen and another Kimi Raikkonen, resulted in Heikki losing his chance to stand atop the podium while Kimi was forced to finish third.

For the majority of the laps run in Turkey, the battle most watched was between Lewis Hamilton and Felipe Massa. Felipe seemed to dominate the race for the most part, except at one point when Lewis passed the young Brazilian. Once the manoeuvre was analyzed, however, the audience was left wondering if the young Brazilian simply let the young Briton pass, as both followed a quite different tyre and fuel strategy.

Mclaren settled on a three-stop strategy that allowed for short runs on light fuel loads, while Ferrari followed the conservative two-stop strategy.

Whether the reason is what Mclaren implied, that they were given the warning by Bridgestone to run shorter distances on their tyres, or the fact that Ferrari has improved their car to such an extent that Mclaren and other teams look to new strategies to catch the red squad, will never truly be explained.

What we did know was that in using a three-stop strategy, Mclaren was able to scavenge the next best thing to victory.

What the race also demonstrated was Ferrari's impressive performance on the track. Ferrari has shown that their car can be fitted with any of the tyres on any given weekend and use them to their advantage.

Unlike the cars of the competition, the F2008 works so well with both soft and hard tyres that the grading is minimal. Having a car that is soft on the tyres gives the red team an obvious advantage, as running the car on either of the two compounds provides for equal return. Running the car on the soft tyres may even prove more beneficial.

Ferrari has learned from last year's mistakes and developed their car accordingly, thus maximizing the performance of their package. Whether it is the tyres or the aerodynamic improvements, Ferrari was the only team to record 200 km/h in the speed trap on the weekend.

While Massa used all these factors to the advantage and thus achieved victory at the Turkish Grand Prix for the third year in a row, he did not finish the race with a grand slam. The Brazilian took the pole and won the race, but it was Kimi who achieved the fastest lap of the race. Overall, the performance of the red cars was quite impressive over the weekend, and perhaps the only improvement would have been a 1, 2 finish for the red team.

The reality of the 1,2 finish was of course spoiled by Lewis Hamilton taking second, and the second runner up for the constructor's title seemed to not even be a factor on this particular weekend.

Sauber may have failed to finish on the podium, but their 4, 5 place finish is not such a bad outcome after all. Fans of the Swiss-German team may be hoping for a victory this year; however, both Mario Thiessen and Robert Kubica are both aware that it will take a mistake by Ferrari and a poor performance by Mclaren to achieve a win on a weekend.

Certainly, Sauber and its drivers are not settling for the title of third-best team, and this weekend demonstrated that they are looking to challenge at every turn.

Other important mentions and perhaps surprises included a sixth-place finish by Fernando Alonso, a strong outing for the Red Bull team as Mark Webber took seventh, and another points finish for Nico Rosberg in eighth.

Heikki's drive took him to 12th, and it was a clear demonstration how far behind in development and performance are teams such as Honda, Toyota, Toro Rosso, or Force India.

While all teams prepare for the glamorous circuit of Monaco that will host the F1 circuit in two weeks' time, fans are asking if perhaps we are seeing another resurgence of Ferrari, if the bullish views of Mclaren are more than just views, and if perhaps Sauber can yet again challenge the top two squads in the 2008 season.

Ferrari's strong showing this year is quite impressive. However, no person can predict what will happen from one race to the next and how the championship standings will look weeks from now.

Kimi best summed up this feeling in the Italian camp at the end of the post race conference.

"We had a difficult weekend, and I'm happy to be third," he said. "I didn't lose too many points. We'll see what we can do in the next few races. The next two last year were not so strong for us, so we will see what we can do."

F1 teams and their fans will certainly watch and see what will happen.

Formula One: Death Of a Dream In The Piranha Club

Pawel Hyrkiel — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:44:56 -0400

Jordan, Matra, Simtek, Stewart, Wolf, Tyrell, Surtees, Prost, Minardi, March; the list could go on for pages. Teams such as this have been linked by their common history as privateer teams entered into the largest Piranha tank. That list of teams left behind by the passage of time has now a new member, Super Aguri.

Outside of Super Aguri no tears will be shed by the passing of this small team, however their presence and good character will be missed in the ever shrinking paddock. Historians will record Tuesday, May 6^th, 2008, as the conclusion of a dream and the end to the hope for a nation of millions. The end did not come on that May morning, however. Super Aguri’s future was doomed far earlier than the Wednesday before the Turkish Grand Prix, or the day that word broke the team’s trucks were not allowed onto the grounds of the Istanbul Circuit, or even before the start of the Australian Grand Prix.

Super Aguri’s end can be traced back to the 2007 season. Having competed with an antiquated SA06 the year before Super Aguri was getting ready to make a big splash in ’07 with their modern and “new” chassis in 2007.

F1 experts and fans will recall the first Aguri chassis, the SA05, entered by Aguri for the 2006 season. Even with the updates the car was simply a pig to drive, and quite a few drivers would complain about the moving pylon on the track. The SA05 and the SA06 that followed approximately midway through the season, were both rebadged and updated Arrows A23 chassis from the 2002 season. Nevertheless the team seemed to attract the attention and the fan base, and a dream that first started as a way for Honda to save face following the letting go of Sato was something of an anomaly.

As 2006 season drew to a close the F1 fraternity was looking at a certain rule contained in the technical and sporting regulations, and this rule was directly related to Aguri, Honda, and the plans for the little outfit’s 2007 campaign. Both Williams and Spyker were concerned of the chassis sharing as they called it, or customer cars as the FIA termed them.

“I am adamantly opposed to chassis sharing,” Frank Williams stated. “We at Williams do not believe it is legal under the current rules. We are what you might call a traditionalist racing team which believes that we are out there competing for two world championships - one for the best driver in the world and one for the constructor who builds the best car in the world. As far as I’m concerned it is absolutely in the regulations in black and white that every team must make its own chassis.”

While Frank Williams’ point was a valid one Toro Rosso and Super Aguri were in fact following the FIA rules which clearly allowed them to enter customer cars as long as the cars are designed by a third party.

Honda, the parent company of Super Aguri had relied on the expertise of a third party to develop the RA106 chassis, and their claim was that as a result the intellectual property did not belong to the Honda Racing team. The rule in question by supporting and opposing parties was Schedule 3: A constructor is a person (including any incorporated or unincorporated body) who owns the intellectual property rights to the rolling chassis it currently races, and does not incorporate in such chassis any part designed or manufactured by any other constructor of F1 racing cars except for standard items of safety equipment, providing that nothing in the Schedule 3 shall prevent the use of an engine or gearbox manufactured by a person other than the constructor of the chassis.

The car that Super Aguri entered in the 2007 season, the SA07, was in fact a re-badged RA106 chassis from the year before, but as Honda and Aguri both claimed it was not the intellectual property of Honda, but of a third party.

While the solution was short term one, this decision to become competitive and break out of their designation as Honda’s B team was indeed one of the key strikes that cost Super Aguri their future. Had Super Aguri decided to develop their own car instead of relying on a loophole that teams were challenging left and right, then the little squad may have been on the track.

As the 2007 season drew to a close the rules were being re-written once again; any teams entering the 2009 championship would have to be built and designed by the team and no third party designs would be permitted. While these rules were set to apply to the 2009 entries and a full season lay ahead before their implementation, one does not design a car overnight, and if no funding does exist than one can not start the process.

The financing and sponsorship were not enough to keep the team afloat, and Aguri Suzuki decided in favour of euthanasia than prolonged suffering. As the F1 fraternity looks ahead to the future some pose the question if Honda did enough for the team, and if all this could have been avoided.

Month ago, when Williams first signed the engine deal with Toyota, a story was printed in the F1 Racing magazine that Toyota is planning to rebadge the engines sold to Williams to carry the name of Lexus. The rumour has seemingly died, but it brings on a curious question. If Honda and Toyota are in direct competition with each other on track and off then why would Honda not choose to promote an alternative brand from their automobile manufacturing umbrella?

When the US Grand Prix was terminated one of the biggest losses was cited as a loss of advertisement in one of the largest markets for automobile sales. Regardless of that decision American fans flock to their televisions and across the border to Canada to watch the sport. Would it not have been in Honda’s best interest to promote a luxury brand from their line of cars?

Honda , the car giant is not a poor company, it has recorded sales of 1.38 billion yen in 2007. And while 2007 sales plunged in comparison to the numbers of the year before a successful advertisement campaign such as fielding two teams representing the different lines of luxury could have resulted in a profit rise in the following year. Unfortunately this decision was never taken, but it is possible that it may have been considered.

Super Aguri has stuck with Honda to the very end; however what if the parent company had given him the authority to shop in another market; as the idea of the Korean Grand Prix comes closer to becoming a reality it is possible that Hyundai would have been more than willing to buy into the team. Volkswagen and Audi have voiced their opinions on avoiding the volatile sport, but there are more than enough car manufacturers who may consider taking a dip in the piranha bowl.

As the day draws to a close only Suzuki Aguri and Honda truly know if Honda truly helped or hindered them. The details known to us are somewhat shady; we will never know why Magna group pulled the plug on the deal, nor what constituted Honda’s decision not to accept the Weigl offer.

Some will argue that Super Aguri’s performances that often shamed the factory team led to a no love lost scenario and that it was in Honda’s best interests to see Aguri off the grid. Others will simply say that without true sponsorship backing and lack of proper structure necessary to commence the manufacture and design of an in house chassis, the program was set to fail from the get go. Both arguments could be seen as valid, however the truth of the matter will not save Super Best Friends.

As the season rolls on without the participation of the 11^th team, its passing marks another chapter in the ever evolving saga of F1. Super Aguri’s presence reminded the Formula 1 fraternity of a time gone by, of days when this was not a business but a gentleman’s sport, when winning was not enough, and some were more concerned about looking classy and having fun rather than achieving victory for profit. Where Red Bull has drifted away from the party life and matured Super Aguri reminded us that a smile is often enough. Super Aguri was a team full of nice people, but also people dedicated to succeeding at all costs, and scaling the tallest mountain with the shortest rope.

While their demise may have brought tears to the founder, one can not help but feel sadness for the piloti, the drivers of Super Aguri. Few will forget Takuma Sato’s passing manoeuvre on Fernando Alonso at the Montreal Grand Prix in 2007. Young Sato accomplished a feat that sometimes Michael Schumacher failed to. Takuma wasn’t always as graceful as on that Canadian afternoon, but he did have his moments. The young Japanese may have understood that the team only existed for him as a result of the Japanese people’s outcry, but to Anthony Davidson this was the first regular drive in F1 which is now a thing of the past.

While Takuma may have once driven on a regular basis for a top team Anthony Davidson has been denied that opportunity time after time. The young Briton has almost been forgotten by the F1 fraternity enchanted by the likes of Lewis Hamilton. Jackie Stewart called Jenson Button a Briton forgotten by a nation now completely in love with Lewis Hamilton, but it is Anthony Davidson that has truly been pushed aside.

Regardless how one looks at the sad story, Aguri’s history of successes and failures can be used as a teaching tool for future newcomers. Yet will anyone be willing to step up to the plate? F1 now requires new teams to pay a $48 million for entry, design your own car, and pry existing sponsors away from other teams or find sponsors willing to pay the promised money through the entire season. Finally as a new team on the block you must be able to survive in the environment lovingly called the piranha club.

Super Aguri achieved quite a bit in its short life span, but sadly it was not enough. As much work as may have been put into the operation, in the end it was not enough. How much would have been sufficient, however, when even your single parent was expecting you to fail?

Raikkonen Leads Ferrari To This Season's Second One-Two Finish

Pawel Hyrkiel — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:34:54 -0400

As light dawned upon the Circuit de Catalunya on April 27, 2008, a few questions crept into everyone's mind. How heavy on fuel was Alonso? Would everyone see red, or would another dark horse emerge? Would Lewis repeat his mistakes from Bahrain? And just as importantly, how would the driver's standings look by day's end?

Even before the lights went green, Alonso's trek around the Spanish circuit almost ended in disaster. Yet, just like the questions, this was soon forgotten. As the lights begun to light up, spectators held their breath as their "hometown" hero, sitting in second, could very well win the race. Quite possibly, for the last time, the F1 fans would witness 22 medium-tyre shod cars erupt in anger and begin the first lap of this Spanish duel.

Yet, this was today. Not Turkey, nor Monaco, nor any other races where Super Aguri may no longer line up on the grid. As in the past, the outcome of the race seemed to be decided on the very first lap. Felipe Massa, third on the grid, managed to fly past Alonso and hold the position, and thus engineer the run towards a one-two finish.

The Tifosi, hoping for such a magnificent finish, seemed to ask themselves as to who may take the crown on this Sunday. Force India’s Adrian Sutil and the Toro Rosso of Sebastian Vettel were not as lucky, and became involved in a first-lap incident that resulted in an early deployment of the Safety Car.

Under the caution yellow, the top-three positions were made up of Kimi, Felipe, and Lewis, who had made a jump on Robert Kubica. Heikki Kovalainen was sixth in the second McLaren, hoping for a failure of one of the cars ahead.

While the top runners were running away with the race, and almost hoping to settle their differences in the pits, the drivers further down the grid were battling with each other for precious points on the track. On the seventh lap, Nelson Piquet's race came to an end. Renault’s promising weekend seemed to unravel on lap five; having dropped to 18th from 10th position, by running wide on turn four, Nelson Piquet attempted an overly optimistic move on Toro Rosso’s Sebastien Bourdais for position, resulting in a collision and in turn, the retirement of both

The safety car session on the first lap may have been responsible for Alonso lasting on his initial fuel load, and it was not until lap 16 that he pulled into the pit stop. The theory of the Spaniard running on empty may have been blown out of the water, as Massa pulled in for a pit stop on lap 19, followed by Kimi on lap 20, and both Hamilton and Kubica on lap 21.

All that action left the remaining Finn in P1, but only for a short time. Heikki's race came to a sudden and dramatic end shortly thereafter. In an accident reminiscent of both Michael Schumacher’s 1999 crash at Silverstone, in which the German broke both legs, and Hamilton’s Nurburgring qualifying shunt of last year.

Heikki's car ripped into a track barrier, and the Finn emerged from the car not of his own strength, but seemingly with minor injuries. Following what Martin Whitmarsh described as the failure on the left-front wheel rim, which caused the tire to collapse.

As the marshals looked after the McLaren driver, the safety car was deployed for a period of time lasting 13-minutes. The lengthy time period proved costly to Heidfeld, who had to pit for refuelling before the pits were open, and was handed a 10-second stop and go penalty for it. Honda’s Rubens Barrichello also ran into trouble after a brush with Force India’s Giancarlo Fisichella at pit exit, causing him to lose his front wing and forced an unscheduled additional stop, and as result, his early retirement from the race two laps later.

The Barrichello incident seemed to matter very little to the audience; however, their mood seemed to deflate shortly thereafter as the remaining Renault pulled over on the side of the track. The Renault symphony came to a crashing halt as the Spaniard's engine expired, followed by Rosberg’s on lap 41.

No further incidents would be recorded until the almost foreseeable incident involving Red Bull's David Coulthard. David's complaints of being the target of many younger drivers were backed up as he was victimized in his fourth race of the year. Timo Glock and David were lucky, the German emerged with a damaged nose, while the Scotsman had to pit for a new rear tire.

This minor incident did not affect Ferrari's overall domination of the weekend. At the chequered flag, Raikkonen crossed the line 3.2 second ahead of his wingman, followed by Hamilton just 0.9 seconds further back.

As Kubica crossed the line in fourth, some were left to argue that, judging by Hamilton's staggering pace in the final laps of the race, the Britton could have very well have challenged for position had the race been longer. The arguments would remain just that, and what seemed to matter was Webber's season-best result for Red Bull of fifth.

While not challenging for position, the dark horse of the race seemed to be Jenson Button, who grabbed Honda’s first 2008 points with a sixth place, ahead of Williams’ Kazuki Nakajima, and Trulli in eighth.

Following this Sunday’s Grand Prix, Raikkonen's standing in the driver's championship reflect the impressive lead he generated by the end of the Spanish race. The results in Spain leave Raikkonen with a comfortable nine-point cushion over Hamilton in second (29-20), while things behind the Brit look very tight. Kubica is third with 19, one point ahead of Massa, and three in front of Heidfeld. Kovalainen is sixth with 14.