Bleacher Report - Articles by Alex Cowley

The 10 Drivers Who Really Deserve to be in F1

Alex Cowley — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:25:06 -0400

With possibly 28 cars taking to the grid next season there has never been a better chance for a rookie to gain a seat in F1. With 4 new teams in the sport: USF1, Manor Motorsport, Campos and Lotus, GP2 drivers and others who have been sidetracked in the lower series. Not since the mid-90s has there been such a raft of new teams and potential race seats for new drivers and with the regulations still not fully utilised many young drivers will be hoping to make their mark.

Begin Slideshow

The Nightmare That Is KERS

Alex Cowley — Tue, 05 May 2009 19:11:01 -0400

Sometimes F1 confuses me. Recent examples would be the recent steward interventions, the introduction of the winner takes all points system, and Max Mosley's recent assurances that F1 does not need Ferrari.

Yet sometimes F1 downright aggravates me and leaves me begging the question why almost an entire series filled with some of the biggest car companies in the world cannot get one component of a car right? Why has KERS been such a problem?

On one hand the issue seems fairly obvious, it's a question of weight. Weight affects everything in motorsport, decreasing acceleration, braking power and putting more strain on the engine and tyres. The KERS equipment is a weighty device which adds considerable ballast to a finely balanced rather edgy machine.

Therefore, KERS is a piece of kit that must not only be designed to save weight but also not effect the balance and speed of the car.

Not only this, but is the development of KERS is seen as an important step in the direction of energy conservation. F1 is at the forefront of developing KERS for all forms of motorsportand transport and this continues on from the recent messages F1 has been sending out about the importance of looking after the enviroment, so far with Honda and the "earth" car. However, the pinnacle of motorsport has been unable to balance KERS and performance.

One way the teams have tried to combat the drawbacks of KERS is to shed weight off the drivers. Over the winter only the wiry Kazuki Nakajima gained weight. This weight reduction has turned F1 drivers effectively into motorised jockeys but failed it seems to solve the weight issue.

However this does not seem to be the crux of the KERS problem. Surely it's the performance (or mainly lack of) thus far during the race weekends.

Of the nine teams planning to run KERS this year only four teams have done so, and only three of which have run KERS on both cars. This hardly encourages the smaller teams to introduce KERS. However, while the small turnout for KERS has been an issue, its relative lack of performance has been a hammer blow.

KERS is designed to give a 6.7 second boost of power to the engine of the car per lap. It uses up the excess energy from the brakes in order to recharge a cell to provide the engine with this power. Therefore, this gives a car kitted with KERS a significant advantage at the start of a race or when attempting a pass on a long straight. However, so far this supposed advantage has not offset the overwhelming problems.

Ferrari have had a disastrous time with KERS, with the failure in Malaysia on Kimi Raikkonen's car being the "highlight." Furthermore they've seen very little performance advantage with the exception of the increased acceleration at the start. Thus far Ferrari is averaging less than a point per race this season.

Indeed Ferrari's strongest weekend was arguably when they didn't use KERS, in China, when Massa was running well in the points before reliability problems cost him.

Of the other three teams that have used KERS only McLaren have seen a net gain. Renault have been solidly mid-pack thus far and BMW-Sauber have struggled with the weight issue so much that Robert Kubica has been unable to effectively use KERS at all.

So it's 1/10 for effort by F1, but what do you expect when it comes to alternative technology and the automobile industry?

I'm not trying to accuse anybody of anything but the fact that the collective might of Ferrari, BMW-Sauber, and Renault which spend millions on development cannot fashion the KERS technology is astounding.

Certainly its seems recent performance has severely hampered the attractiveness of KERS. So far there has been very little interest from the other teams.

Brawn were never going to introduce KERS this season, Force India have given up developing KERS to focus on aero performance, and the introduction of the Williams fly-wheel system has no arrival date. And don't even contemplate going into the quagmire that is Toyota.

I'm not blaming the independant teams for the lack of KERS in F1, but the powerful manufacturers especially Ferrari, Toyota, and Red Bull that either have failed to construct a reliable KERS system or find a balance have been the main source of the problem.

Ask these guys to perform miracles of aero design and they do so. Ask them to create a KERS system and suddenly they're stumped.

At the present moment only three teams will be running KERS in Spain this weekend, of which only McLaren have been able to run a successful KERS programme.

So KERS has been a failure thus far, but it is not just down to the development and implementation of KERS. The surprise is that KERS has been introduced so gradually.

Again it feels that F1 is dragging its collective heals on the subject of KERS and energy and while F1 is prepared to colour their cars or tyres green to create a theoretical "eco" message, when it comes to reality they have been severely lacking in enthusiasm.

Why was KERS not implemented from the start? why did the FIA not increase the weight restrictions? (they have now, albeit from 2010 onwards). Why with the European season about to commence has the dawn of KERS still not materialised?

Put simply its a combination of poor performance, a lack of effort on all sides and general lack of implementation. The downfall of KERS it seems is that nobody cares.

New Formula 1 Points System Set To Be Scrapped

Alex Cowley — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:49:29 -0400

In a surprising turn of events, it has been recently announced that the new Formula 1 points system is likely to be deferred until 2010.

The system, which would decide the championship on the number of wins each driver took, has taken widespread criticism from drivers and fans alike. Current drivers such as Lewis Hamilton, Jenson Button, and Fernando Alonso have questioned the need to implement a new system when the old 10-8-6 points system has not caused any problems.

Even the likes of Michael Schumacher have been against the idea. It is believed that the decision was taken as a large number of teams protested, claiming that F would be preferred to keep the old system for 2009 and postponing the new win-based system until 2010.

This is an interesting turn of events, as it seemed that while initially the new system was seen to be a step backward, it was gaining support from both the drivers and public.

Mark Webber on bbc.co.uk was in favor of the system, while this writer wrote an article about the merits of such a system as well.

However, it seems that overwhelming opposition has finally pushed the FIA to scrapping the system until 2010 at least. At the moment, it seems that F1 will go back to the old points system, at least for this year.

Note: To see my article on meriting the new points system follow this link - http://bleacherreport.com/articles/140647-why-the-new-points-system-is-not-such-a-bad-idea

New Formula One Points System: Not Such a Bad Idea

Alex Cowley — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:17:50 -0400

The news came today that a new points system will be implemented from the start of the 2009 F1 season. While it will use the 10-8-6-etc. structure of the previous iteration, the raw number of wins of a driver will now decide the championship.

Initially, it seems that this idea is critically flawed, as it allows for a driver to be very inconsistent throughout a campaign, yet still walk away with the championship. However, further analysis proves it is not such an alarming change after all.

The idea almost certainly originates from Lewis Hamilton winning the 2008 championship despite winning just five events to Felipe Massa's six. That made it apparent that the old system didn't necessarily reward the fastest driver, but instead the most consistent racer or the team that was the most reliable.

Initially, Bernie Eccelstone wanted to introduce a "medal" system, which would only award points to the podium finishers. What we get with the new system is a hybrid of both the old 10-8-6-etc. system and a top-three system.

In effect, the driver who wins the most races will win the championship. While the points accumulated will decide the championship if a tie occurs, the system is based on outright victories, not so much on consistency.

Of course, the negative of this is that it leaves open the possibility of rather bizarre scenarios like a driver winning the championship by midseason, or someone being named champion despite having only participated in six or seven events (assuming he won them all).

But this criticism seems rather far-fetched and doesn't take into account the general trend of F1.

Generally, it is the driver who wins the most races that wins the championship. This is due to the fact that, usually, the driver who wins is the fastest or the most consistent. This is especially evident in modern F1, where reliability has become key.

Thus, a situation in which a driver only finishes a couple of races but takes the championship seems unlikely.

Having said that, consistency was important in the 1980s. Under the new system, seven out of 10 seasons during that decade would have had a different outcome. Prost would have been a five-time champion and Nigel Mansell a three-time best. Clearly, evaluating solely wins in that period would have led to a very different outcome.

But the 1980s were during the "Turbo Era," when circumstances were very different than those of today. One side of the field ran turbos on their engines, and they were much faster than the normal aspirated machines, but far more unreliable.

That meant that the turbo-using cars would often finish only a handful of races each season. In that way, the normally aspirated cars would benefit from their unreliability. But generally, they could earn the most points, because in races that they did finish, they typically took a high position.

But this situation does not persist. Ferrari was often criticized for their poor reliability last year, but they only had four mechanical failures on race day.

Compare that to the Renault team (that used turbos) in 1982: They had 14 mechanical failures. Under the new system, Alain Prost would have won the championship. Under the old system, he finished fourth.

So, while stats show the difference the new system would make, this is in the context of an F1 plagued by reliability issues. One thing that F1 is not nowadays is mechanically unreliable.

Another reason I support the new system is that it really has no affect on the midfield teams. At the end of the day, only two (or maybe three) teams will fight for the championship, and the importance now being placed on winning really won't have much impact on a team like Red Bull or Force India.

Deep down, they know they're not going to challenge for the championship. Essentially, the title is already decided by wins. Thus, the system really only affects the top spots and will still leave the door open for the midfield teams.

A by-product of the new system is that we will see each race "last the distance." Every event will be fought to the last lap and the last corner, as the F.I.A. stresses the new system will reward those who push to win and push all the time.

It's quite clear that a consistent race puts more emphasis on strategy through pit-stops, while a race based on winning involves overtaking and aggression—two things all F1 fans have been crying for for years.

The new system also opens the door for some new winners. With the increased pressure and reward for winning, the top drivers will inevitably make mistakes. That will allow the slower cars, who bide their time on track but also push to move up the leaderboard, to be rewarded.

In an odd twist, the consistent drivers will also potentially be rewarded under the new system. It will come down to driver ability.

Many argue that increased importance for winning will mean that we will see fewer comeback drives from the top teams, as coming through the field will be pointless if a rival is leading. Drives such as Hamilton's at Monza's could become a thing of the past, and we may see more of what happened in Singapore with Massa, who effectively gave up rather than risking an accident fighting his way through the pack.

With all respect, I say, "So what?" The new mode leaves the door open to the midfield drivers to grab a good result, and the top drivers will never really relax or give up when they can still put pressure on their competitors to force them into a mistake.

The new system rewards victory, but also demands consistent speed, precision, aggression, and overtaking ability. It's entirely up to a driver if he wants to give up on a result, but just as in the old system, it will be his call as to whether or not he can afford to do so.

The new F1 points system could encourage both skill and competition. A driver has to go all out for the win, but also must show the driving abilities in order to beat his peers.

Whatever your view on the system, it will make the upcoming season even more exciting.

Giorgio Pantano: Forgotton But Not Gone

Alex Cowley — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:01:00 -0500

F1 (and indeed motorsport in general) is not a forgiving profession. Most talented, young drivers fall far short before they are given the chance to form a successful career. The few that do get to the top stage deserve the plaudits that they receive, and yet many never get the recognition they deserve.

Like all sports, the successful few are given the majority of attention.

This can be seen in the story of Giorgio Pantano, a man who has never been able to make the transition from the lower formulae into F1. Since 2001, Pantano has been waiting in the wings, hoping to receive an opportunity to show his true metal.

So it is understandable that Pantano was furious at the lack of attention from the F1 paddock this year after dominating GP2, the acknowledged stepping stone to F1. Essentially he has become the forgotten man of motor sport, not even being given the chance to drift away in the back end of the F1.

This can be put down however to a number of factors. Firstly as I said before motorsport is not a sympathetic profession. Most drivers have to work their way up independently sourcing huge amounts of money to buy drives and impress the top teams.

Few series have teams who actually pay drivers. Indeed, in 2006, Giorgio Pantano became the first driver to be paid by a GP2 or F3000 team when he joined Campos.

So when a driver does get to F1 they receive only one shot at glory. This has been dumbed down a bit with the increased corporate aspect of F1 as teams look to develop drivers from an early age, but even so there is no safety net.

A number of promising young drivers have spent years impressing in the lower formulas but never really cut it in F1. Luciano Burti went from team to team in 2001 until badly crashing at Spa which effectively ended his F1 career. Anthony Davidson never was really given a serious chance despite loyally staying with Honda for seven years.

Norberta Fontana excelled in F3 but was never given the chance as a serious driver and vanished. All these drivers were seriously impressive year after year but either turned up at the wrong time or just didn't take their chance when it finally came.

Pantano falls into the latter category he did get his chance, when he signed with Jordan in 2004, but was unable to impress. That year he was dropped twice from the line-up, once for failed sponsorship payments and then later for a lack of results as he failed to score points.

Matters were only worsened by the fact that the man who replaced him, Timo Glock scored points on his debut and beat Jordan's then No.1 driver Nick Heidfeld. From there Pantano was never a viable option for the Jordan team. He had his one chance and he blew it.

So Pantano is a tried and tested machine and his gears certainly grind a lot more than a number of other drivers in GP2 at the moment. When Pantano won the GP2 championship there was almost an air of guilt for Pantano as he was a bit of an anomaly.

Every champion before him (Nico Rosberg, Lewis Hamilton and Timo Glock) have gone on to become respected F1 drivers. Even a select few who failed to win (Kazuki Nakajima, Nelson Piquet) have been given their chances and haven't fallen flat. Yet Pantano does not fit the bill they do.

At the age of 29, he is hardly an up and coming superstar. He is simply too old to be moulded into a champion; you feel his time has past and he would have to pull out the stops far more than a much younger driver with a similar reputation.

That is why drivers like Bruno Senna and Sebastien Buemi have gained the F1 driver rumours post 2008 as despite the fact they failed to win this years championship, they are far more desirable as a young potential star for a F1 team than an established relic like Pantano.

Pantano is a superb driver, he is probably the most successful F3000/GP2 driver this millennium and certainly merits a top drive after a domineering 2008 season under his belt.

In 2008, he won four races, taking the championship by 12 points despite scoring only five points in the last two rounds. Thrice he has finished in the top three as a F3000/GP2 driver thus his pedigree is without question.

But the fact that he has been so successful in that category speaks volumes of his inability to break through the barrier into F1. Despite his success he has missed the boat and is just not a desirable option for a F1 team anymore. During 2004 he got the reputation as a pay driver, essentially a guy with more money than talent.

That might not be true but his disastrous year compounded this thought as he failed to qualify higher than 15th and his best result was 13th. He also had the strange affliction of over driving the car but at the same time being too conservative. Such a dreadful reputation destroyed his hopes in F1 and explains his prolonged stay in GP2.

However you do have to feel sympathy for Giorgio Pantano who has done so much to become a F1 driver but has never been given a serious chance. But in the end it speaks volumes about the highly competitive and cut throat world of motor sport that Giorgio, despite his obvious talent, will never get a chance in F1.

Vijay Mallya, Force India: Will McLaren Partnership Push Them Forward?

Alex Cowley — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:49:34 -0500

The team which will be looking to 2009 with the most optimism will be Force India. With their new collaboration with McLaren, the removal of Mike Gascoyne and Colin Kolles from management, and Vijay Mallya running the team, there is a lot of changing going on in the little Brackley team. The hope is that they are changing for the better.

Mallya has aimed high, claiming that the team should be able to fight for points in 2009 and even challenge for wins in 2010. It's an outlandish claim which seems naive, as the team failed to score points this year.

However, with more money going into Force India (supposedly) and the new McLaren collaboration, there is hope of at least seeing a more competitive team than at least 2008.

The contract between Force India and McLaren calls for them to be supplied with engines, gearboxes, and, perhaps the most important of all, KERS. This immediately puts the Force India team at an advantage as they do not have to develop KERS. The deal basically gives them about one second of pace on a platter.

This is a bit of a coup for Force India; KERS has been a real dog to master. Toyota has already stated their belief that their KERS will not be ready until midseason, while Ferrari has also struggled to perfect the system.

Force India will not have to worry about this tricky piece and can concentrate on the new aero rules and tune their car accordingly.

Of course the KERS system is not the only benefit. Force India will also receive the McLaren engine and gearbox, which are extremely reliable, fast, efficient, and state of the art. In the last three seasons McLaren, has seen just two retirements from mechanical failure.

With this technical package sealed, Vijay Mallya is confident about the future.
"Winning races I think I can certainly aspire for, maybe in 2010. But, for 2009, I would be happy if we are regularly in the points. That would be already a major step forward." (Autosport.com)

Those are strong words from a man who runs a team that failed to score this year.

However, the team is helped by the uncertainty that surrounds the 2009 season. It is obvious from the talk that many teams will bring out two cars during winter: one car to develop and fine tune, the other with all the goodies and parts which will replace the winglets seen in 2008.

This is to prevent prying eyes from copying their designs and take the upper hand. Indeed, it seems that Australia 2009 is certainly going to be a topsy turvy race.

This allows Force India to dream of F1 glory. But, from Mallya's words, he seems to think that 2011 will be the clincher for the team. Essentially, 2009-10 are the rehearsal years for the moment of destiny—the 2011 Indian Grand Prix.

"I would love to see a Force India car on the podium in the inaugural Indian grand Prix." (Autosport.com)

Of course, with the sense of stability the McLaren package will bring to Force India, they may indeed challenge for a podium in a couple of years. Nobody can predict who will be the fastest in 2011, especially as F1 will look very different to now.

However, my feeling is that Mallya is showing the signs of optimism that always befalls a rather over-reaching team boss.

He expects Force India, on its meager funds, to challenge for wins by 2010? That would be some feat and almost impossible to achieve for a number of simple reasons.

Firstly, Mallya has completely restructured the team, making himself the head of the whole outfit. In one year, Mallya feels he is better suited to running the team than Mike Gascoyne, a highly respected technical director, and Colin Kolles, a man who knows the team inside out.

It seems strange that a man who until this year had no F1 experience believes that his views will represent the best intentions for the team.

Secondly, if Mallya thinks that signing with McLaren will allow the team to win races, he may be in for a bit of a shock. McLaren will not allow Force India to jeopardize the Woking outfit's position.

"If, as a consequence of this relationship, Force India are in a position to give us a hard time on the circuit then I think that's an interesting prospect. That is something that ultimately we've got to respond to. We're in Formula One to compete." (Autosport.com)

McLaren aren't going to control Force India, but they will prevent them from being a threat.

Finally, Mallya is pinning his hopes on the McLaren package propelling them up the grid by itself. On recent form, the Force India car is the slowest on the grid. While 2009 will certainly be less predictable on the technical front, it seems unlikely that a team can go from back markers to front runners in just one season.

Of course, Force India could draw on the experience of Toro Rosso who did that this year. However, Torro Rosso had already shown they could put the car into the points on a regular basis (end of 2007) and also brought in a new car designed completely by a wealthier team, and by one of the juggernauts of F1 design in Adrian Newey.

Force India hasn't shown the potential to move up and, despite bringing in a new car (up to 2009 spec), are not guaranteed it will be quick. As I said, before they had Ferrari engines for two seasons (the first coming under the Spyker banner) and that yielded them just one point.

McLaren isn't offering to build their car, but only to supply them with equipment. Excellent world class equipment, but not something that will propel Force India onto the top of the ladder.

So, while the future is no doubt bright for Force India, brighter than under Midland or Spyker, the Brackley team still has a long way to go. Yes, they will have the engine, KERS, and gearbox under their belt, but they must now build a car which is reliable and fast. Only then will we have a true indication of the potential of Force India in the coming years.

F1 Racing Officially Ugly!

Alex Cowley — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:09:10 -0500

Today, Williams unveiled its wing package for the 2009 season, and I have to say, it isn't a looker.

True, F1 cars have grown increasingly complex and vulgar with their shark fins, pieces on the side pods, and even nose wings (like on the McLaren and BMW Sauber this year). However, all these horrible pieces of aero equipment pale in comparison to the monstrous creation concocted by the new aero rules in 2009.

With the banning of spare parts on the main body of the cars, a large part of the many changes made for F1 in 2009, I had hoped that the cars would go back to a more sleek, nimble design.

In the early 1950s, and even up to the late 1990s, F1 cars were designed to make us marvel at the technical achievement, but also the beauty and elegance of these machines. Especially how they were so cool and calm at 200mph.

I do not see that in this F1 car.

The 2009 model is designed around that concept. With a high rear wing and wide low front assemblage, it has taken pursuit of aerodynamics to another level, with the wide and low nose (surely begging to be swiped by another car, kerb, or bump) and the vile rear wing. But to me, the changes look unnatural, ugly, and off-putting.

Of course, if they help improve racing in F1, then I may be able to get used to them. But what was wrong with simply toning down the number of aero parts on the car? Simply removing all the tiny appendages on the sidepods?

The cars worked before (1998-2000) and we saw some of the most thrilling action and racing in F1's history. So why is it necessary to destroy the aesthetics of a car so much?

What truly unnerves me about the design is that it really looks like some strange experiment that the team is testing out. Remember the wings on the nosecone used by Arrows and Jordan in 2001? Those strange wing mirrors used briefly in 1998? Or how about the six-wheeled F1 cars? These were radical changes, but they were never permanent.

The FIA and F1 teams are seriously putting forward this concept as the future of F1. It worries me that while the most recent cars were not exactly pretty, this contraption beggars belief in its inability to charm the audience.

F1 is about the racing, of course. If the new aero regulations allow better racing, more action, more incident and controversy, then this new form of vehicle will probably be accepted.

But, in essence, these cars have no soul. Even if we see a great season in 2009, I will still look at that rear wing and say, that car was not built for the people. It was not built as a classic design or to admire F1 for its ability to reach the highest height of technology, but also pull off an excellent piece of design.

If anything, this is a testament to the soulless, corporate nature of F1 where winning is everything.

There is no style, no glamour, no pizzazz about F1 anymore. Anybody who has any knowledge about this sport will tell you that isn't what the pinnacle of motorsport is all about.

Constructors Rankings Part Two: The Top Five

Alex Cowley — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 05:57:13 -0500

The continuation of my Constructors rankings, this time the top five.

Note: To see the first part of this article click here

5. Toyota: Toyota used to be a bit of a joke until 2005. This turn in reputation can be attributed to Mike Gascoigne who helped push the team up the grid. But when he left they promptly went back to the doldrums of the midfield.

But this year Toyota finally seemed to get it right. The team radically built a whole new chassis moving way from their usual conservative approach and it seemed to prove dividends. The car was instantly quick in Australia with Trulli qualifying sixth. He then beat that qualifying third in Malaysia and finishing a remarkable fourth in the race. Throughout the year Jarno was the only midfield driver to consistently challenge for points.

Glock found it harder not scoring until Canada. But once he started to put the car in the top eight he couldn’t stop culminating in that excellent drive in Hungary. Toyota was consistently strong throughout the season and was unlucky not to finish fourth in the Constructors championship thanks to Renault who came on so strong at the end of the season.

Best Moment: A number here but Hungary and Brazil when the car was undoubtedly a car to match the top teams.

Worst Moment: Toyota did have one weak race—Turkey where they were beaten by Williams, Renault and Red Bull.

What to watch out for in 2009: Glock coming through the ranks.

4. BMW Sauber: Another year, another step forward—BMW Sauber finally got their car up the front. While in 2007 they were the stop gap between the top teams and the midfield their pace this year was undoubted taking their first pole and first win. What’s more they drove to 11 podiums this year, compared to two in 2007.

It seemed to be going so badly in testing. With the car needing modification almost immediately, with the ugly nose wings, the car was never fast. But in Australia it seemed that BMW Sauber had been sandbagging all winter when Kubica stuck the car on the front row and Heidfeld drove to second in the race.

The team benefited greatly from their consistency, at one point leading the drivers championship, and being only three points behind Ferrari after seven races.

But Mario Thiessen was adamant that 2008 was a year of consolidation and that 2009 would when BMW-Sauber really stepped up. Indeed Kubica feels that if they had focused more on this year that he could have won the championship. This lack of development showed as the car was lacking some pace by China.

Kubica, one of the top qualifiers, was unable to get into Q3 in either China or Brazil. Still BMW Sauber did brilliantly again and it is very likely they could challenge for wins on a more regular basis next year.

Best Moment: One-Two in Canada

Worst Moment: Hungary—made to look like a midfield team after the performance of Toyota.

What to watch out for in 2009: A serious championship assault.

3. STR: Few teams could say that in just one season they could go from F1 minnows to Giant killers. But STR did the impossible, putting their car that originally had been battling with the likes of Force India, to fighting with Ferraris and Mclarens.

Let’s not forget that this is principally the Minardi team with a bit more money, red bull logos and a pre-built chassis. So for the team to take pole and win a race is truly outstanding. What’s more the team was able to get more out of their chassis than their senior team Red Bull (helped of course by their Ferrari engines).

Undoubtedly Vettel was one of the stars of the season being the first of the two drivers to not only put the car up front and challenge for points but also consistently look competitive. Bourdais found it rough going at the start but began to pick his pace up in the summer and was very unlucky to score just four points all year.

STR must build on this for 2009 although the threat of excluding customer cars from F1 in 2010 always looms and with Vettel leaving for Red Bull the future is not quite so rosy as before. So it is imperative for the team to build on this year and hopefully improve.

Best Moment: Minardi winning in Italy? I used to reenact that with my toy cars when I was eight!

Worst Moment: Seeing Bourdais breaking down in Australia—at the time that seemed the last chance for STR to get a truly amazing result.

What to watch out for in 2009: Hopefully Bourdais (should he be retained) shows us why he was a four time champ car champion.

2. Ferrari: The Ferrari team did win the constructors championship emphatically by 21 points, however they were not the best team this season. Too many errors accounted for lost points during pit stops while strategic errors hampered races. In Britain for example the team did not put Raikkonen on new wets and that lost him any chance of victory.

In Valencia they risked Massa’s victory with an unsafe release into the path of Sutil and then botched Raikkonen’s stop; and of course in Singapore where their traffic light system slip up cost Felipe Massa the race. Too many mistakes not so much hampered their progression in the Constructors but specifically Massa and Raikkonen’s title hopes.

There was also the problem with reliability. During the season Ferrari had four reliability issues, three of which were terminal. Australia was their first double DNF due to reliability since Britain 1997. This doesn’t sound a lot but usually the Ferrari is a bullet proof car and during the Schumacher years it was not uncommon to see less the Ferrari run without a single mechanical problem.

Such an issue is this that Ferrari team are preparing to conduct an investigation in order to find out why they suffered so many failures.

But of course you can’t win championships on negatives. Indeed the team obviously were more consistent than Mclaren in setting up both drivers. With Kimi Raikkonen on board and with an inform Massa the team were going to be hard to beat. Raikkonen had a poor season by his standards but still notched up 75 points and third in the drivers championship.

This was the lynchpin in Ferrari’s title aspirations as they got both cars consistently in the points when Mclaren failed to do so.

It could also be argued that the team built the best car. Even though many claim that the Mclaren is better through its unbelievable reliability and general raw pace, the Ferrari took eight poles and eight wins. What’s more with Raikkonen at the helm, 12 fastest laps. There is no doubt that the Ferrari was the better car in the warm, dry conditions while the Mclaren was easier to drive in the cooler, wet weather.

In a normal season this would have given the Ferrari a huge advantage and in races like Bahrain, Spain and Valencia the Mclaren was nowhere near the pace of the Ferrari. But 2008 was not a predictable season. Ferrari was good but not good enough to take Massa to glory. Indeed if anything they held him back.

Best Moment: Would say constructors win but overshadowed by Hamilton triumph- Malaysia to Turkey when the car looked unbeatable.

Worst Moment: Singapore the team were made to look foolish as they ran down the pit lane.

What to watch out for in 2009: A Raikkonen resurgence and fewer reliability issues.

1. McLaren: The McLaren team pulled off an almost flawless performance notching up their first title since 1999. One could argue if Mclaren had had two Hamilton’s in the car they could have taken a clean sweep. Indeed Hamilton was quick to hand out plaudits to the Mclaren mechanics for helping him win this year’s world championship.

Not only was the car consistently fast but also was the most reliable car on the track. Kovalainen’s engine blow was the only mechanical retirement of the season and the first engine problem for Mercedes since Europe 2006.

What the Mclaren team had over Ferrari was not only reliability but also their diligence on the pit wall and in the garage. There were no major pit stop hiccups for example, an area where Ferrari should take a good look at next year and while there was the slip up in Germany over Hamilton’s fuel load, the Brit was so dominant that day that it hardly mattered.

Indeed for Hamilton the team were able to pump out perfect cars almost every weekend. The same could not be said for Kovalainen who seemed to be almost forgotten in the team’s push for the drivers’ championship. This became most apparent in China where the tyres were not put on the right wheels leaving Kovalainen’s car treacherous to drive.

This almost unbelievable mistake represented the teams focus on Hamilton. Not only that but they would usually fuel up Kovalainen’s car in qualifying to put the Brit ahead of Heikki. The team quite clearly focused on Hamilton’s car at the expense of Kovalainen.

However the main strength of Mclaren was their ability to evaluate an unpredictable situation. In Monaco Hamilton appeared out of the running after brushing the barrier on the exit of tabac and getting a puncture. But the pit wall gambled and put him on a heavier fuel load hoping the rain would ease. It did and he won, not down to luck but by the calm, intelligent thinking on the pit wall.

Without doubt Mclaren were crucial to Hamilton winning the drivers championship, although it probably cost them the constructors. With their focus clearly on Hamilton, it seemed almost a one car outfit in the second half of the season, although Kovalainen’s bad luck certainly didn’t help.

Mclaren were the best team of the season outstripping Ferrari when initiative was needed and when the weather and track were unpredictable. While they were easily defeated in the constructors’ championship, they did field the best car possible and must take credit for the Brit’s first drivers championship.

What's more, they didn't hamper Hamilton like Ferrari did with Strategic errors and reliability issues. A truly diligent, polished and title winning performance from the whole team.

Best Moment: A joint moment between watching the Ferrari mechanics running down the pitlane in Singapore and winning their first championship since 1999.

Worst Moment: Japan when in the first few laps both cars were out of the running.

What to watch out for in 2009: An improvement from Kovalainen could lead to a serious assault on both titles.

Constructors Rankings 2008: The Tail End Of The Grid

Alex Cowley — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:54:22 -0500

This was not only a great year for the drivers but also the constructors championship with new winners, a much closer midfield and up and coming teams punching above their weight.

If you've read my previous two articles, it's pretty much the same system. Essentially this article is my review of each team who are ranked on my personal opinions of their performance this year.

Note: Again like the drivers rankings I have not included Super Aguri, it just wouldn't be fair.

10th: Honda Honda seems to be going backwards. This year, if anything was worse than 2007 as the team failed to break into the midfield and scored the same number of points as last year. In a season of more unpredictable results they should have down better.

The team were hurt by the lack of development and by Hungary they were already focusing on 2009, if the down turn of results is to be believed. Honda continues to have title aspirations but so far have shown no signs of jumping from rivals of Force India to challenging the likes of BMW-Sauber and Renault.

It’s easy to criticise but one would expect a team that has been around for almost a decade to be able to improve on the show in 2007, especially with the funds and skills they have on board. On next year Ross Brawn and the team are, as usual, confident, Brawn going as far to say that the team to aims to fight the BMW-Saubers.

Can they do it? With the new regulations and Ross Brawn at the helm they have a much larger chance to step up than this year but all too often Honda promises much but deliver little.

Best Moment: Third in Silverstone was pretty much the only time when the Honda team got something right.

Worst Moment: Take your pick after Canada.

What to watch out for in 2009: Brawn’s first winter taken in anger is the biggest hope for team in the future.

9th: Force India One thing you have to say about Vijay Mallya and his team of minnows is that they try to the bitter end. They failed to score this year and after Super Aguri went bust they had little in the way of competition.

But they stuck at it bringing in new aero parts, spending Mallya’s cash injection and had a pop at the midfield whenever they could. However the sad truth was that the car never looked like scoring in a normal race and only through Sutil’s brilliance in Monaco did the car look remotely competitive.

Like Honda however there is some bright hope for the future. The collaboration with Mclaren (should they get it) would be a sensational sweep and there is some element of continuity in keeping Fisichella and Sutil on for next season. So with Mike Gascoigne, new aero regs, the same drivers and hopefully more cash maybe Force India could join the midfield next year.

Best Moment: Monaco—Sutil's performance.

Worst Moment:When the new aero parts in Germany failed to move them up the grid.

What to watch out for in 2009: If they get the McLaren parts and expertise then they could challenge the midfield, if not then they'll be at the back again.

8th: Williams The season started with so much promise for Williams. On the form of winter testing many analysts were claiming that Williams would take over from BMW-Sauber as the best of the rest. Certainly in Australia they were one of the few teams to get both drivers home and in the points, albeit Nakajima had a few scrapes along the way. Indeed the season started well with the team scoring consistently. By Monaco they had scored 15 points, including one podium.

But during the summer, when races became more predictable the lack of speed in the car was shown. In France for example which probably was one of the least interesting races of the season both drivers failed to finish higher than 15th, beating only Bourdais and the Force India’s.

Furthermore if you took away Rosberg’s great drive to second in Singapore the team would have only scored two points after Monaco. That’s better only than Force India. Williams are one of the classic F1 teams but they are moving towards of the back of the pack and as an independent team there is no manufacturer backing. Everybody wants to see the Williams at the front but there is little sign that anything is going to change soon.

Best Moment: Australia where both drivers scored points and the team briefly held second in the Constructors championship.

Worst Moment: The summer season was an absolute nightmare.

What to watch out for in 2009: Little news on plans for 2009 but if ever they needed Rosberg to shine it would be next year.

7th: Red Bull In many ways this was Red Bull’s best year in F1, finally cracking the reliability and putting in some consistent points results. But in other ways it was their worst as they were embarrassed by junior team Torro Rosso and eventually their season tailed off.

Once again for Red Bull it started well. Mark Webber was sensational as he was easily the best of the rest behind the likes of Ferrari, Mclaren and BMW-Sauber. He took six points results between Australia and France. While Coulthard couldn’t seem to match his pace or consistency, the Scot was dogged by incident, he did drive well in Canada, taking Red Bull’s only podium of the season.

While the Red Bull was once again a pioneer chassis under Adrian Newey (coming up with the shark fin) the car failed to improve and Red Bull began to slip down the pecking order. In the last races Webber failed to qualify in the top 10, a feat he had previously achieved in 11/14 races.

But what hurt Red Bull the most is that they were thoroughly beaten by their baby team Torro Rosso. Arguably this could be down the driver line-up- Bourdais and Vettel were probably faster than both senior drivers.

However most blame it on the impotence of the Renault engine, compared to the Ferrari engine of the Torro Rosso. This was a nice alibi for Red Bull, until Singapore and Japan when Alonso showed that the Renault engine could win races.

Development throughout a season seems to be a weakness for Red Bull as they seem to get little out of the car compared to other teams. Yes they lost out most to the increased competitiveness of Renault, STR and Toyota, but to finish 10 points behind their baby team was surely disappointing. At least however Vettel is replacing Coulthard for 2009. This could either be advantageous for Red Bull or a hammer blow to Vettel’s career.

Best Moment: Inspired timing in Singapore during the safety car period put both cars on the podium temporarily.

Worst Moment:Being thoroughly out paced by Torro Rosso throughout the second half of the season and finishing 10 points behind in the constructors’ championship.

What to watch out for in 2009: The fate of Vettel’s career, will Red Bull be able to rise up ahead of their Junior team?

6th: Renault 2008 was looking a dud year for Renault. With Alonso struggling to get the car in Q3 and Piquet crashing more often than Massa did in 2002. It seemed that the French team would have to wait another season to get to the top. Luckily for them they were able to fix their aerodynamic problems and we saw a glimpse of the team that were champions in 2005 and 2006.

The main issue was that the front wing was causing problems for both drivers giving them under steer. However they were able to fix that and were able to out develop their competitors and move up the grid. By Singapore Alonso was a front runner and deserved the win in Japan, if the first win in Singapore was a tad fortunate.

Renault's progress was remarkable, even Piquet improved tremendously netting a second in Germany (down to a well timed safety car period). He also scored an excellent fourth when he hustled Kimi Raikkonen for a long time for third. When Renault finally saw that a one size fits all strategy did not suit Piquet they began to cater to his needs and he did improve.

But they did have that torrid start which means the team left Brazil with a bitter-sweet taste in the mouth, although it’s looking pretty bright for a Renault fight back in 2009.

Best Moment:The best piece of teamwork this season—Piquet crashing in Singapore gifting Alonso the lead in the race.

Worst Moment:Erratic driving in Monaco from both drivers lost team potential points with Piquet crashing rather pathetically and mistakes showing that even Alonso is human.

What to watch out for in 2009: If Alonso can challenge the top guns from the off.

Drivers Rankings Part 2: The Top 10 of 2008

Alex Cowley — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 03:55:36 -0500

So I continue my countdown of the top 10 drivers of the year. If you want to see my first article, click on the hyperlink below:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/76590-drivers-rankings-2008-part-1-whos-lived-up-to-their-potential

10.Nico Rosberg: Nico had a season that does not compare to last year. Despite taking his first two podiums of his career, Nico lost the consistency of the 2007 Williams and looked more of his fiery rookie style than his more mature performance last season.

However, he was one of the drivers who took advantage of the unpredictable nature of the 2008 season, netting a career-best secondin Singapore while also scoring his first podium in Australia.

Indeed, like Nakajima he started the season well, scoring eight points in the first five races. However, as the season progressed Williams failed to improve their car and slowly Nico dropped to the back of the field.

In the last three races, he qualified no higher than 14th, which is awful for a driver considered to be one of the top qualifiers in the game.

Still, he beat his teammate comprehensively and seems settled and popular for the foreseeable future. No doubt if Williams get back to their best, Nico could become a star.

Best Moment: If anything his first podium was sweeter than Singapore as he qualified well and drove at the front for the whole race. A polished performance.

Worst Moment: The French GP, where the Williams was nowhere. He qualified 19th and finished 16th.

9.Nick Heidfeld: Heidfeld shone in 2007, easily outstripping rated teammate Kubica; he was the only other driver(bar the top teams) to net more than one podium.

However, in 2008, he seemed less motivated. It was obvious from the start that Kubica was going to be the star, so it was a surprise that Heidfeld took secondin a turbulent opening race.

Indeed, Heidfeld finished second on no less than four occasions, underlying his potential as a driver who can grind out results.

However, what put him down was his failure in qualifying. He didn’t qualify higher than fifthall season and failed to get into Q3 five times.

This was a defining problem for Heidfeld, who spent the majority of the season trying to fix this issue. This inevitably hampered his race pace. This year, he was soundly beaten by Kubica.

Best Moment: An inspired drive in Silverstone saw him take second place on the same tyres as Kovalainen and Raikkonen.

Worst Moment: Once again, failing to win despite taking those four second places.

8. Jarno Trulli:Jarno showed why he is still considered a talent this year. His drives at the beginning of the season were truly inspirational for all the midfield drivers aspiring to beat the top guns.

Jarno was able to consistently qualify in the top eight and scored points on 10 occasions. Without doubt, this was his most competitive year since 2005, and Jarno is making it difficult for Toyota to find a reason to replace him.

Best Moment: France was a sensational race; banishing the memories of 2004, Trulli put the Toyota way above its usual position and superbly took a podium. The only car that was faster was the Ferrari.

Worst Moment: There weren’t many, but not being able to capitalise on the front row slot in Brazil was a disappointment.

7.Timo Glock: Without doubt, the rookie of the year. While Glock had a poor start, he was able to improve beyond all measure.

That drive in Hungary was one of the best all-round performances of the season and helped Toyota to the front of the midfield pack.

His drive in Brazil was very reminiscent of his ability to "punch above his weight." With nurturing, this guy could be a surprise package for the future.

Best Moment: Hungary. The whole weekend was a fairy tale.

Worst Moment: Australia was a rough weekend, with Glock qualifying 18th and crashing out.

6. Kimi Raikkonen: The reigning champion started the season well, scoring two wins in the first four rounds and heading possibly for another title.

But between Hungary and Singapore, Raikkonen netted only six points and was out of the championship and playing second fiddle to Massa.

What seemed to hold him back was his inability to generate heat in the tyres, hampering his single lap performance and therefore always playing catch up.

He was indisputably the fastest man on race day, taking 10 fastest laps; however, he was often too far behind. This ruined his hopes of retaining the championship. Potentially, he is one of the great F1 drivers, but he needs a good season next year.

Best Moment: Spain was a lights-to-flag dominant win.

Worst Moment: Singapore was yet another DNF down to driver error, as Kimi showed that he was under intense pressure.

5.Robert Kubica: After a disappointing 2007 season, Kubica struck back with a stellar year. Robert was one of the most consistent drivers of 2008, so much so that he led after Canada with a single win.

However once STR and Renault began to improve, Robert became under serious pressure and later on in the season, he failed to match the incredible standard he set.

What’s more, BMW Sauber preferred to focus on the 2009 championship, meaning that in the short term, Kubica was losing development ground to the likes of Alonso and Vettel.

After Canada, he took just three podiums. Still, fourth in the championship was a decent result, and the BMW Sauber seems to only be improving year after year.

Best Moment: Canada was his first win and he took the championship lead. Hard to beat that.

Worst Moment: Losing third in the championship to Raikkonen in Brazil.

4.Sebastian Vettel: If anyone thought that Vettel in 2007 was even slightly impressive they would have been mesmerised by his performance in 2008. A first pole, first win and podium, and 10 points finishes in a car that had started as a back marker, fantastic.

Vettel outshone the competition, placing the baby Red Bull car well above its better funded brother and its rivals.

His drive in Italy was nothing short of majestic, but what was really impressive was his ability to consistently put the car at the front of the grid, unlike Bourdais who was fast only sporadically. Watch this guy; he’s going to be mega.

Best Moment: Italy, should I say more?

Worst Moment: Spain, where he was taken out of the race on the first lap for the third time in four races.

3. Fernando Alonso: I never really liked the guy until this year. He was a great driver, I was prepared to say, but I didn’t like him.

So in a way, it was with deep satisfaction when he had a tough time at McLaren in 2007. But when many might have turned their back on the sport, Alonso came back, took the struggling Renault team and turned his fortunes around.

With his obvious talent, Alonso was able to put the Renault in a position where it really shouldn’t have been, and like Vettel did his very best to upset the status quo at the front.

His win in Singapore was a tad fortunate; his win in Japan was the drive of a champion. Overall, he was best of the rest. Because of his character and speed, he helped turn Renault from a struggling midfield team to a consistent front runner.

Best Moment: His wins were great, but his best moment was when he claimed an unbelievable second on the grid in Spain. It was a sign of things to come.

Worst Moment: His second "home race" in Valencia, out after one lap.

2. Lewis Hamilton: A controversial decision, to place the world champion second? It’s mainly a testament to the close nature of this season’s championship that I place Hamilton this low, because there is no doubt that he drove brilliantly in a season of unpredictability.

Hamilton won the two races closest to his heart: Monaco and Britain, while he also won Mercedes their most important race at Hockenheim.

Hamilton, of course, had to battle not only the other drivers but also the steward’s decisions. While Malaysia and France seemed fair, Spa and Japan were obviously less clear-cut.

But he handled the pressure well and built a healthy lead with one of the drives of the season, in China. Indeed there were times when Hamilton was unstoppable like in China and Canada, but if anything, there were more times when he made mistakes.

Malaysia, Bahrain, Canada, France, Japan, and dare I say Brazil were all races that Hamilton had misfortunes inflicted partially or completely by his own driving.

He has without doubt the best race craft of any driver in this year’s lineup, but he made too many mistakes to be warranted the No. 1 spot in my list, even though he deserved the championship.

Best Moment: There were many but taking the championship in such dramatic fashion surely is the highlight.

Worst Moment: Canada was all sown up it seemed until that pit stop.

1.Felipe Massa: Felipe Massa was for me the driver of the season, and he takes it by the slenderest of margins. While many may claim foul that Hamilton is not given the No. 1 spot, Massa gets it through a number of factors.

First, he statistically outranks Hamilton. He won more races, took three fastest laps and was a more consistent qualifier than the Brit. He also beat Hamilton 10-8 in race results.

Furthermore, unlike Hamilton, he lost points not mainly from his driving or race craft but problems with reliability and mistakes made by the team. Hungary was a dead cert until three laps from the end, while pit-stops were almost a farce after the debacle in Singapore.

He did, however, have three bad races down to his own driving. In Australia, he never got to grips with the car, and he had similar problems in Silverstone. In Malaysia, he threw away 8 points with a lapse of concentration.

But what gives it to Massa is that he outperformed the expectations in a way that Hamilton could not. In the long term Hamilton is probably the better driver but this year Massa stepped up to the plate.

While almost all of us would have expected Hamilton to challenge for the championship, few would have expected Massa to be a contender. Massa showed his worth throughout this season. He had to become No.1 in the Ferrari team, for example, when Raikkonen faltered, he came from behind to challenge Hamilton in the championship and he was always there consistently battling for podiums.

Even in Germany, when Hamilton was fastest by a margin, Massa was still the only man who was anywhere near him. Massa’s performance was similar to Eddie Irvine in 1999, who also had to take the mantle as No. 1 of an expectant Ferrari team.

Even though Hakkinen won that year, Irvine surpassed expectations as he stood up to the pressure and succeeded in giving Ferrari their first constructor’s championship since 1982. Massa’s performance reflects that crazy year and surely that is enough to rank him No. 1.

Best Moment: Valencia was when he was truly considered a title contender.

Worst Moment: Realising the championship was gone in Brazil.

Formula 1 Driver Rankings: 2008

Alex Cowley — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:26:02 -0500

The conclusion of the 2008 season provides a fitting time to reflect on a great year.

With action, drama, emotion, controversy, and conflict smattered with a few classic races, the 2008 season has been a rollercoaster ride.

Lewis Hamilton took the championship by just one point on the final corner of the last lap; we have truly seen history as the youngest champion is crowned and one of the closest finishes of F1 is finalized.

The 2008 season has also been a great year for the drivers, with all of them having their fair share of drama in an unpredictable year. But, who has driven like a champ and who has driven like a chump? Who has impressed and who has not? Who deserves credit and who no longer deserves a seat in F1?

I will review each driver's performance this year and assess his position in the sport.

Note: I have not included Super Aguri in the rankings as I feel that it would be harsh to analyze only four races compared to a full season.

Giancarlo Fisichella: 2008 was a tricky season for the Italian. Scoring points was always going to be tough if bizarre circumstances didn't favour him. Furthermore, competition was scarce after the break up of Super Aguri; that hardly helped to motivate the Italian. The only other person he could race was his teammate. Going down to the fact that Sutil had that great race in Monaco, I would say that Fisichella's performance was less impressive than Sutil's season.

Anyway, given his record, he should have scored points in a season racked with unpredictability.

Best Moment: In Brazil, where he raced with the likes of Hamilton in the early wet conditions after a well timed pit stop for dry tires.

Worst Moment: His reluctance to allow the leaders through in China.

Adrian Sutil: His race in Monaco showed how good of a driver he is Maybe, if he can get in a team further up the grid, he could have a decent career. However, all too often the Force India was not fast enough. Thus, he languishes down the order.

Best Moment: Monaco, where he spent almost the entire race in the points and was in an unbelievable fourth before Kimi Raikkonen lost control coming out of the tunnel.

Worst Moment: Obviously, the Raikkonen incident.

Jenson Button: Practically anonymous this year, Jenson was obviously none too impressed when Honda announced their decision to focus on 2009. Hopefully for him, it will prove an inspired decision. After that decision, Jenson had neither the focus nor the car to challenge for points and scored only once. He is a good driver and, in the right car, could win races. But, with every passing year, his chances of winning races and championships are becoming less likely.

Best Moment: Very hard to say. Spain was his only points finish, so yeah, Spain.

Worst Moment: A horrible weekend at Silverstone saw him qualify a meager 17th and spin off on the 39th lap. In reality, it all went downhill after Spain.

David Coulthard: A rather timid end to his career saw him have poor luck. He was part of his fair share of incidents, including scrapes in Australia, Bahrain, Spain, Monaco, G.B., Japan, and Brazil. However, he was also completely dominated by Webber, taking just eight points (six of which came from his lucky drive to third in Canada).

His first lap incident in Brazil, which ended his racing career, was unlucky and summed up his season.

Best Moment: Hard to say, but his drive in Singapore was his best, as he held off Lewis Hamilton for over 20 laps.

Worst Moment: Brazil. Being taken out of his last race by an overzealous Nico Rosberg.

Rubens Barichello: If anything, Rubens was the better driver in the Honda team, taking 11 points and the team's only podium. He also seemed to be the happier of the drivers, maybe because he knew he was under the most pressure and thus had to perform and please the team. However, he did put in some good performances, which only highlighted Button’s obvious lack of focus.

Best Moment: Silverstone, where the tire gamble paid off.

Worst Moment: Clashing with Fisichella in Spain, and throwing away a likely points haul to boot.

Kazuki Nakajima: After the first six races or so, Nakajima would have probably been higher. Indeed, at the beginning of 2008 Nakajima was almost pegging Rosberg as his obvious ability to stay out of trouble allowed the Japanese to haul in the points.

However, after Monaco, he scored just two points. What held back Nakajima was his lack of pace in qualifying. That always put him at a disadvantage as he couldn’t work his way through the pack, even if he had the pace. This also made him more susceptible to contact; he was involved in a number of incidents in the year.

He is only a rookie and does deserve another year with Williams, but he will have to get everything right next year.

Best Moment: After a pretty indifferent season, he was probably relieved to hear he was signed for Williams for 2009.

Worst Moment: Damaging the car on the first lap of his home race was pretty bad.

Nelson Piquet Jr: A tricky start to the season left him with much to prove. He finally did that in France, passing double world champion and teammate Fernando Alonso at Renault’s home circuit and scoring his first points with a seventh. This seemed to give confidence to a driver who seemed wholly lacking of any self belief or motivation. ]

However, what really seemed to give Piquet that confident edge was when he was placed on a less pressurized qualifying and race strategy, meaning that later in the season he was able to impress the F1 paddock.

Best Moment: Safety car turmoil led him to the front in Germany and was only passed by speedy Hamilton on his way to an excellent second.

Worst Moment: Monaco, where he could only qualify 17th and crashed out while trying out dry tires on a damp track. This was the lowest point of the season for the Brazilian.

Sebastien Bourdais: Bourdais was probably the unluckiest driver of the season. There were several occasions where he could match Sebastian Vettel, but couldn’t bring the car home.

In Australia, he was in fourth before the engine expired just three laps from the end. In Belgium, he was running third until almost the last corner, when he was passed by drivers on wet weathered tires and could only manage seventh.

In Italy, he stalled on the grid, losing any hope of scoring in a car that won the race in the hands of Vettel. In Japan, he was penalized for his collision with Massa and lost his seventh place.

It’s pretty obvious that Bourdais was fast when the car was fast, but "lady luck" intervened on too many occasions. He deserves another chance.

Best Moment: Belgium, where he was strong all weekend and outraced Vettel in every way.

Worst Moment: Italy on the grid, when all the dreams of a podium came crashing down yet again.

Heikki Kovalainen: This may be harsh, but Kovalainen only finished seventh this season in a car that won a championship with Lewis Hamilton at the wheel. His shortcomings include losing out to Fernando Alonso, in a generally midfield Renault, and Nick Heidfeld, whose season tailed away. Some of this was down to bad luck. Spain, Monaco, Turkey, and Japan were all races he could have scored podiums in, but incidents beyond his control intervened. Also, there was some poor driving, such as in Canada and Germany, where Heikki was truly outclassed by Hamilton. He never really challenged Lewis and has firmly become No.2 in the Mclaren team. Surely though, there is more to come from him.

Best Moment: Inheriting the Hungary victory from Massa was the only bit of good luck he received in a turbulent season.

Worst Moment: Japan, where he was finally in a perfect position to win but was snuffed out by a blown engine.

Mark Webber: Had the season ended after France, Webber would have probably been the most inspiration story of the season. After 2007, a year wrecked by reliability, Mark took 18 points in six races, averaging an astounding sixth place per race. Putting off a torrid start, in which he retired on the first lap in Australia, he fought back with five points finishes in a row and a fourth place in Monaco.

Sadly, the Achilles heel of Red Bull, their development program, struck once again and its weak Renault engine hurt Webber. He scored just three points in the next 10 races, a sad way to end a very promising season.

Best Moment: Second on the grid in Silverstone was pretty cool and generally he qualified very well (as usual).

Worst Moment: Had a chance for a podium in ,but the car gave up on him after 29 laps.

There's my first 10 up for scrutiny and analysis.

Coming up is my top 10, which I expect to complete tomorrow at some point.

Timo Glock: The Spark of Potential

Alex Cowley — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 02:25:43 -0500

There is no doubt in my mind who is the rookie of the season. If you can put an uncompetitive car fifth on the grid and not only maintain that position but improve on it, then you are a top driver. Not only this, but to also come back from a weak start to the season to averaging a point a race then surely that is worth commending. That man is, of course, Timo Glock.

Glock is an unusual rookie. He has experience of F1. Indeed, only two rookies came into F1 this year without experience of F1 action, and it tells that teams are increasingly looking for experienced, top-notch drivers rather than untested novices.

Timo's earlier experience comes from the Canadian GP in 2004, after Giorgio Pantano was dropped from the lineup when his flow of sponsorship money was temporarily stemmed. This allowed Timo Glock, or Tim O'Glock, as the Irish Eddie Jordan called him to step into the breach.

He certainly made an impact. Timo qualified in 16th, just one place behind Nick Heidfeld in the No. 1 Jordan, a feat in itself although the best was yet to came. Timo was not only able to beat his teammate but also score two points in an amazing seventh, after both Williams and Toyotas' had been disqualified when brake duct irregularities were found on all four cars.

While the points haul was fortuitous, the biggest impact Glock had made was finishing ahead of Nick Heidfeld. The high-flying Heidfeld had generally been impressive in a truly uncompetitive car, scoring two points in Monaco and finishing 10th in Europe. Everybody knew how good Nick was, and for Glock to beat him was quite a shock.

While Pantano retook his seat for the US GP, it was obvious that Timo had left a lasting impression. Indeed he subbed again for Giorgio after the Italian failed to inspire. Timo drove in the last three races, finishing 15th in all.

This less-than-impressive run meant he was not recalled for 2005, although he still remained on the radar. He joined the GP2 series, pushing Hamilton for the championship in 2006 and winning the series in 2007. He came into 2008 as an established name, signing for Toyota.

However, his 2008 season did not start well, crashing out in Australia and losing a likely points haul and then spinning in Malaysia on the first lap. It looked possibly that Glock had overcooked his return, that he would be too erratic and aggressive, something that has afflicted rookies before (such as Massa), an aspect of a driver which shows a lack of confidence and lack of maturity.

Indeed, up until Canada, Timo looked out of sorts. He spun twice in Monaco, qualified only 15th in Turkey, and could only finish 11th in Spain, a race which saw a lot of attrition, beating only David Coulthard and Takuma Sato.

But Canada changed everything. Timo showed on the track that saw his blistering debut that he had lost none of his speed and consistency. He managed to dodge the wrecking cars and the crumbling track to take fourth. He was the last to pit on lap 42 and fuelled the car to the finish.

Timo was able to manage his tyres and brakes in a similar vein to Alex Wurz in 2007. This result put him ahead of his team mate and also outraced Felipe Massa, holding him off to finish just 1.3 seconds in front.

This is an area which has benefited Timo greatly, the one-stop strategy. Like Piquet, he used his qualifying pace to his advantage running a long one-stop strategy and managing the car better than his rivals. In all, bar Hungary, he has run a one-stop strategy and scored points. Like Piquet, it allowed Glock to improve his understanding of the car and grow in confidence. This was definitely evident in the races to come.

Hungary, for example, is a race which possibly could define Glock's career. He was able to qualify an unbelievable fifth on the grid. Many pointed to a Glock probably having a low fuel load, as Trulli had only qualified ninth and had not matched the pace of Glock.

True, Glock did run a two-stop strategy. However, he pitted on lap 20, two laps after Massa and pole sitter Lewis Hamilton. The fact that he was just 0.5 seconds behind pole with two extra laps of fuel showed just how good his pace was in Hungary.

While he obviously capitalised from Hamilton's puncture and Massa's blown engine, there is no doubt that he had speed to race the front runners and actually improve on his grid position, irrespective of the problems that Hamilton and Massa encountered. Glock was able to take second, his best result to date.

What really stood out was that Glock broke the curve of convention. While in earlier years, Trulli had placed the Toyota at the front of the grid and then gone backwards, Timo went forwards and this showed his obvious pace. Bar Vettel's win in Italy, this was surely the drive of the season.

Glock is also one of most the improved drivers, maybe only behind Alonso and Piquet. While in the first six races he averaged 13th on the grid, and 11th in the race, he has improved tremendously in the last six races of the season. From Europe onwards, he has averaged 10th in qualifying and eighth on Sunday.

Glock has scored consistently in the second half of the season, taking 17 points from the last seven races, in a midfield car that is pretty good going.

So, Timo Glock has my pick for Rookie of the Year. While having a sticky start to 2008, he has improved in leaps and bounds. Glock has shown that not only can he master the pit-stop strategy, so key to modern F1, but also take the fight to the top guns in overall pace.

Surely, the glimmer that many saw in 2004 is no longer a small and insignificant reflection of talent but a fully fledged spark of potential. Certainly, he is one of the best drivers that has come out of the lower series in many a year and one only hopes that Toyota give him the car to challenge the top guns for 2009.

Brazil GP Preview: Pressure Will Tell

Alex Cowley — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 07:02:10 -0400

Going into the last race of the season neither Mclaren or Ferrari can relax. With both the drivers and constructors championships still up for grabs, neither team can afford to give points away to the other. And so far this season both have shown they have struggled to handle pressure.

Unlike in 2007 both Mclaren and Ferrari have given away points by the bucket load this season. This is why we have seen seven race winners compared to just the four last year.

So it seems unlikely that this weekend either team will run flawless races. Mclaren for example have had faultless team work and pit work this year but have sometimes struggled on the driver front.

There is no doubt that Mclaren have been able to outstrip Ferrari in the pit crew department after the debacles in Valencia and Singapore and sometimes strategy and set up(Silverstone and Germany). This is an area that Mclaren must rely upon to get right, if only to pressure Ferrari into an error which could guarantee at least one championship.

Unsurprisingly Mclaren have aimed for the driver championship rather than the constructors to be secured in Brazil, with Lewis Hamilton sven points clear in the drivers standings. Hamilton needs only a lowly fifth place in order to take his first world championship, meaning he can afford to allow the Ferrari's, Alonso, and Kubica through if necessary.

This effectively means that the possibility of Kubica or Alonso hampering Hamilton's race is pretty much nullified should all go to plan.

This should be simple in a car which has been the most reliable over the last two seasons. Hamilton must drive a precise, consistent and conservative race and this seems to be the goal of the Mclaren team, to prevent Hamilton from taking any unnecessary risks, Ron Dennis being particularly vocal in his attempts to keep stability in the team:

"Whether we win the championship or finish second, everyone has already done a fantastic job to take us from where we were 12 months ago to where we are now: in contention for the championship" (Autosport.com).

This is obviously to help relieve some of the pressure off Lewis Hamilton who not only has the whole of the United Kingdom (and its media) expecting him to take victory but also a hungry team which has not taken a championship in almost a decade. Dennis's comments, the calming words of a man whom Lewis has always looked up to, are meant to try and relax the team (and Lewis) in the face of taking Mclaren's first championship since 1999.

This need to relax Hamilton is because Lewis has been a bit erratic when it comes to pressure situations. There is of course the incident last year in Brazil but also Canada where he forgot about the red light in his hurry to rejoin the track, and also Bahrain after being slow away off the grid.

This is not to say that Hamilton has driven poorly, quite the contrary on his day few could touch him, but when he has been on the back foot Hamilton has struggled. Magny-Cours was a rather tame showing by the usually aggressive Britain for example and in Malaysia he seemed less inspired to fight back than his team mate Heikki Kovalainen.

Such mistakes have cost Hamilton dearly and Mclaren are fully aware of not taking any result for granted:

"Obviously, my aim for Brazil is slightly different from the other grands prix: I don't need to win the race, but that won't stop me from going into the weekend looking to be as strong as possible," Lewis Hamilton (Autosport.com)

We have heard this before from Hamilton that he will attack, attack, attack and this strategy has not paid off. At the Nurburging 2007 Mclaren and Hamilton took that strategy after the restart by placing Hamilton on dry tyres too early. This got Hamilton lapped and ended his chances of points, and of course this aggressive strategy saw him slide off in China.

This has led Mclaren to try and play down the situation because of Hamilton's past response to pressure. This is not helped however by comments made by Ex-Jordan owner Eddie Jordan:

"If he (Massa) tries that on then Lewis has to turn his wheel into Massa to ensure he does not finish the race either—he has to take his wheel off." (Autosport.com)

Jordan's remarks are absolutely ridiculous mainly because Massa's aim is not only to win the world championship but also to win his home race, the dream of any Brazilian since the late great Ayrton Senna passed away.

This moves me on to Ferrari who have so far been less vocal (to my knowledge) during the build up to this pivotal weekend. If anything this could be down to its recent skirmish with the FIA over the engine standardisation issue but unlike Mclaren, Ferrari have not been constantly claiming the need to be calm.

This is of course because Ferrari can attack for the drivers championship and still have a fairly good chance in the constructors (being 11 points clear in the championship). Seven points will be enough for the championship. In that respect Ferrari have a lot less to lose because if a Mclaren should retire then the constructors would be Ferrari's.

While if Raikkonen retires Massa would only have to finish second to take the constructors and would still have a chance to beat Hamilton. In essence Mclaren must perform in both championships in order to be sure of the drivers championship and have an outside chance in the constructors.

But the pressure is not so much on Massa and Raikkonen (Massa has claimed he feels no pressure which however does seem unlikely), but the team. So far one could argue that Massa in particular has driven very well and has probably been the most consistent driver this season.

However many times this year the car or the team has let him down. Australia and Hungary saw Massa have mechanical problems. While the team put his certain victory in danger in Valencia, and did take victory away in Singapore with shaky pitstops.

It seems unlikely that Felipe, despite many claims of pressure starting to affect his performance, will not win Sunday's race. If the car is reliable and the team don't make any mistakes he will almost certainly taste the winner's champagne looking at the last two years and his dominance of the Sao Paulo circuit. 2006 for example was a race in which he finally showed the spark that attracted Ferrari in the first place.

However Massa will have to race harder than Hamilton in order to take the drivers championship. Obviously because of the points difference but also to prove himself as a future championship contender should he fail this weekend.

In one respect like Eddie Irvine in 1999 this could be Massa's one and only chance for the title, as Raikkonen will almost certainly improve from 2009 onwards and become Ferrari No. 1 once again. The pressure is somewhat on Massa as it is unsure whether he will get a chance to challenge for the championship after this year.

It is obvious therefore that Massa can't take the championship from Hamilton by simply winning the race. Only Hamilton can take the championship away from himself. All the Ferrari driver can do is win and hope that Hamilton cracks, or less likely, the Mclaren team or car. In this respect Hamilton is the favourite but as I said at the beginning of this article this weekend is all about pressure, pressure is on both drivers and the pressure will tell.

Ferrari Threatens to Withdraw As Standardized Engines Loom

Alex Cowley — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:55:05 -0400

In a surprising statement of aggression against the FIA, Ferrari says it would reconsider their involvement in the sport institute standardized engines.

This statement came just hours after the FIA confirmed that the deadline for applications to supply standardized engines would be 7th November.

Ferrari, a staunch supporter of the FIA for many years, claimed that the standardization of engines goes against the raison d'etre of the sport which Ferrari has participated in since 1950.

"Whilst reiterating its wholehearted commitment to a substantial and needed reduction in costs in Formula 1, starting with propulsion, the Ferrari Board of Directors expressed strong concerns regarding plans to standardize engines."

"It felt that such a move would detract from the entire raison of a sport with which Ferrari has been involved continuously since 1950, a raison d'etre based principally on competition and technological development," (Autosport.com).

This controversial stance came soon after Toyota issued the statement that they would pull out of F1 if standardized engines were made legal for the 2010-2012 F1 seasons. Instead, they would focus on one more Le Mans assault.

If the standardized engine rule is passed, F1 teams could build their own engines, but would have to adhere to the technical specifications of an engine provider, who could be possibly announced as early as November 28th.

The standardized engine rule is one of many proposals put forward by the FIA to help equalize a sport which is manufacturer dominated. However, should this proposal be put forward and Ferrari and Toyota carry out their threat, will F1 ever be the same again? Should standardization be allowed?

Felipe Massa: Has He Won Over The Critics?

Alex Cowley — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 02:15:00 -0400

It seems that you can't become a F1 legend in a season, but you can be condemned for life as a mediocre driver. Indeed this was the reputation of Felipe Massa who after his debut season in 2002, was seen as an aggressive erratic racer, who wrestled the hell out of each car he drove and reaped very little reward.

However as time has progressed Massa has become a very well-rounded individual, challenging for this year's championship, racing for the most successful team in F1 history, and soundly beating his rated team mate. The question is though has Felipe Massa dispelled his rather bleak reputation...

Felipe Massa left his first season with four points and 13th in the drivers championship. What he also took away was a reputation for being a 'wild-boy' which has stuck with him ever since. In that year he had five incidents, which included collisions with other drivers, spins and constant examples of over driving. Sure he was quick but many criticised how he over drove the Sauber, in stark contrast to Nick Heidfeld who was not only a much smoother driver but also seemed to get results.

He was expected to push Heidfeld like Raikkonen had done in 2001, but was unable to do so. Heidfeld scored on four occassions netting a best finish of fourth while Massa scored on just three occasions with a best result of fifth in Spain.

It seems harsh to compare Heidfeld and Massa, after all Heidfeld was entering his third full season, his second for Sauber, but at the time Heidfeld was not perceived to be a particularly great driver (he himself had a wild reputation after 2000), and Felipe was inevitably seen by the Brazilian public as the next Senna. Yet he could not deliver and was chucked out of Sauber to gain more experience.

To an impartial observer Massa was at best a rough diamond, at worst an average driver who couldn't cut it at the top level. However there were flashes of speed.

In his debut weekend, Australia, he out qualified Heidfeld by 0.3 tenths of a second sitting ninth on the grid. He never finished a race outside the top 10 and in two or three occasions he did finish in the points, Massa finished higher than Heidfeld.

Yet few saw the little crumbs of speed and Massa spent 2003 testing, trying to banish his tendency to overdrive. Luckily one team did see the potential...Ferrari.

Massa himself says this was the turning point of his career as Ferrari began to show a keen interest in this erratic young talent:

"A big part of the learning (for me was) as a Ferrari test driver. That year was like a university for me. Michael (Schumacher) was like the professor and I learned a lot from him, about how to grow inside the team and work with them better." (Autosport.com)

Whatever Massa did however, his reputation seemed to follow him. Even into 2005 when Ferrari announced that Massa would replace the dependable Barichello for the 2006 season, this was seen as a huge suprise.

Why would Ferrari choose the erratic Massa over somebody more reliable or successful? Drivers such as Fisichella or Button where bandied around at the time, but it was Massa who was chosen, and time has shown Ferrari to be wise.

Massa himself admits that had he started as a Ferrari driver his reputation would have markedly changed:

"I'm sure if I started my career as a Ferrari test driver my reputation would have been completely different. Because of the first year, which was bad, my reputation was bad for so many years." (Autosport.com)

However this year Massa has finally shown the racing world that he has 'the right stuff'. After 17 races he still has a chance in the championship and has out driven Raikkonen in almost ever department, a man who he was compared to so ill-favourably in his first year at Sauber.

It is pretty obvious that Felipe has felt the heat of the critics for a long time and is immensely satisfied to finally being praised for his driving:

"I think when you show people something that they don't believe, it's even more nice for you," (Autosport.com)

But most importantly of all he has been able to squash his reputation as an over aggressive driver who can only perform on a set number of tracks. His performances in Monaco, France and Hungary surely attest to the fact that Felipe is more of an all-rounded racer and not just a flash in the pan.

But surely where he has impressed the most is his qualifying this season. In an area where a driver must be fast but also smooth and consistent over one lap, Massa has excelled, taking five pole positions, and 4 further front row spots. Surely this shows how far Felipe has come as now he is not only the smoothest driver on the grid but also one of the most consistent in a discipline that was in stark contrast to his driving style.

The reputation of a driver is always important, as like media image, it will spread much faster than any racing accomplishments. Ultimately Felipe Massa has had a F1 career of turmoil, having to race with the 'wild boy' reputation above his head. Finally however he has been able to remove this weight and has become the driver many hoped he would become. As Felipe himself says:

"People always put me completely out of the game. Nobody expects you to do a good job and then you do a better job than everyone thinks and it's even nicer..." (Autosport.com)

Heikki Kovalainen: The Disappointment Of The Season?

Alex Cowley — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:33:20 -0400

Life is hard for anybody at the top of F1, but as Martin Brundle said during the Grand Prix today, don't expect any favours from the team if you mess up, but instead expect criticism to be thrown at you at every turn. This may come back to haunt Heikki Kovalainen who, today, had a nightmare of a race in Shanghai. This has left him languishing seventh in the drivers championship behind the likes of Nick Heidfeld and Fernando Alonso.

There is no doubt that Heikki has had his fair share of misfortune this season but similarly there have been some severe driving errors. Its best to look at both sides and question whether he has been unlucky or simply poor...

The "Barichello effect":

Malaysia: 50/50 on whether this was luck or driving: steward call dropped him five places on the grid, but unlike Hamilton was able to soar up the ranks taking an excellent third.

Spain: Qualified poorly but was running well until right front tyre imploded causing a 180mph crash.

Turkey: At beginning of race was tagged by Raikkonen, damaging his rear wing, and hampering downforce thus was unable to contest for a podium.

Singapore: Lost out to safety car pit stop madness and was unable to improve.

Japan: Running well early on and with Hamilton out of the picture looked good to win but rare Mercedes engine blow ruined chances.

China: Car placed on "mis-matched" tyres thus struggled with pace. Brake problem caused puncture and subsequent retirement.

Driving standards:

Australia: Qualified well and was heading for a good result after a dodgy pitstop strategy but accidentally pressed the pit speed limiter allowing Alonso through.

Monaco: Stalled on the line ruining any hopes of a strong result.

Canada: Nowhere all weekend (compared to Hamilton who was mighty), was passed by Massa and failed to score points when most front runners were out of the picture.

France: Steward call got him penalised for hampering another driver in qualifying, ruined race.

Belgium: Poor start left him stuck in the midfield and a optimistic manoeuvre on Webber got him a drive-through and ruined race.

Italy: Not really a driving error but couldn't overcome Vettel in a straight fight (although just as much a testament to Vettel's pace).

So it can be said that Kovalainen had a race threatening misfortune of some sort either through bad luck or bad driving in 11/17 races. All in all in those races he scored just 24 points, an average of seventh place per race, hardly satisfying for a driver in one of the top teams in F1.

If you compare this to Hamilton who has averaged around fourth place there is an obvious difference in position and a loss of three points per race.

There is certainly a lot to show that Kovalainen has not performed this year. Not just some driving errors but also some races where he's generally been off the pace...Bahrain for example, Germany and Europe saw Kovalainen not only far off Hamilton and the Ferrari's but struggling to beat the BMW Saubers and, later this season, Alonso.

It is noticeable however that Kovalainen does have raw speed...In Bahrain for example he did put in the fastest lap of the race. Maybe like Raikkonen this season he has been fast but overall inconsistent. Indeed there are often times in races when he disappears from the race altogether and has rarely been in the hunt for the outright win.

Although of course there is the possibility of "favouritism" in Mclaren. It would come as no surprise that Mclaren would support their No. 1 driver and protege Hamilton (seen in Germany this year). However this seems unlikely considering Mclaren's belief in equality between the drivers.

Furthermore if Kovalainen has been playing second fiddle to Hamilton this year, he hasn't showed it. He has always kept up the spotless media image and has never criticised the team even after the engine blow up in Fuji. On the surface at least we see a driver who is perfectly happy with his lot and not at all in a bad place.

So after looking at the stats and the general performance, it is still undecided on whether Heikki has been poor or has merely had a nightmare season. Overall I feel that Heikki has just been unlucky.

While there have been mistakes, Heikki has had his fair share of mechanical problems and bad luck in a car that has been generally been bullet-proof for Mclaren this year. Furthermore pace is there but has yet to be unlocked. Hopefully he will be given time (or the opportunity) to show this in the years to come.

Honda: Will They Ever Get Their Act Together?

Alex Cowley — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:13:09 -0400

One thing has gone under the radar this season, an issue which has been (quite rightly) overshadowed by the increasingly exciting and controversial championship battle, is the continuing demise of the Honda F1 team.

Indeed, Honda have amassed just 14 points (eight coming from a very wet Silverstone). Jenson Button has scored just three points all season. That, unbelievably, is worse than the 2007 total, in a season when reliability and predictable races were more commonplace.

To help explain this fall, one must remember 1999. Probably the most catastrophic debut year for a team was made worse by the team's belief in instant success.

With considerable tobacco sponsorship and a title-winning driver, some speculated that BAR would win the first race of the season and even challenge for the championship.

However when the dust in Australia had settled, BAR could only take away the knowledge that they had the ugliest car on the grid; that Jacques Villeneuve, for his large salary, could only get the car into the midfield; and that neither driver finished due to reliability.

But this was surely a blip for the team? They would almost certainly win at least one race? Alas, the car remained doggedly midfield and fiercely unreliable.

Villeneuve failed to finish a race until Belgium, some 12 races into the season, and the team were beaten by lowly minnows Minardi in the constructors champion.

However, almost from nowhere, in 2004 BAR finally built a fast, reliable car after five seasons of being in the wilderness. 2004 remains Honda's most successful season, as the team finished second in the constructor's championship and their talisman, Jenson Button, finished third in the drivers standings.

There was real hope in 2005 with the belief that the team could challenge for the championship. However, this failed to materialise with disqualifications, unreliability and some erratic driving.

The team amassed only 38 points, 81 less than the year before. While 2006 was much more competitive with a first win and a strong end to the season for Button, they still struggled heavily during the summer months.

These seasons are important in understanding the failings of Honda as they are a team which have underachieved hugely when considering their credentials.

While 2004 was a very successful season, they have failed to repeat such a feat and have barely matched that tally in the seasons after 2004.

But why has Honda fallen by the wayside? That question is probably the most important issue to solve for Honda, as they seem completely unable to diagnose their problems, nor create a solution.

While other teams can steady the ship, Honda have always been erratic, very rarely consistent.

The problem is that a stand out issue with the team cannot be placed. While many criticise the drivers, there is little basis for such attacks.

Jenson Button and Rubens Barichello have between them over two decades of F1 experience, multiple wins and experience in top teams such as Ferrari and Williams.

Honda have the most experienced driver line-up on the grid. Not many would claim that Button and Barichello are slow either...

And surely they have the staff (with Ross Brawn at the helm and an established team which have been functioning for a decade), finance (a gigantic budget beaten only by Ferrari, Toyota, and McLaren) and hearty competition (The battle with Toyota).
There is no shortage of reasons or incentives for Honda to be a race winning team...

However, the most likely reason for the team's demise is that there is a chronic lack of belief within the squad, which has infected the team like a virus.

It has had such a turbulent history of perennially underachieving, after pumping in all the time and resources, that a thick fog of gloom has enveloped Honda.

Take Ross Brawn's comment after qualifying in Italy as an example: "Our car is not too bad in the wet, and so if we get on top of the problems we experienced today, we should still be able to take advantage, despite our positions on the grid." (Autosport.com)

It doesn't exactly sound like a positive outlook when a member of staff claims the car is not too bad. Surely he would be shouting praise to the heavens unless the car was totally inept (savvy with the PR needs).

Also look at Button's comments on the same qualification session (after qualifying 19th):
"We were expecting these conditions to help us, so I am surprised that we have ended up so far back in qualifying today." (Autosport.com)

I might be analysing too much, but both comments seem to show that the team are in the position of being slow and yet have no idea on how to improve.

Such a failure can be attributed to the fact that Honda have put a car together that is slow, unreliable, and aerodynamically challenged.

If you look at all the little bits on the cars nowadays, for example, shark fins, dumbo wings etc., Honda seem to rely on these small aerodynamic pieces hugely, more than any other team.

This shows a huge weakness in the aerodynamic properties of the car and a lack of ideas, as they have to pilfer pieces from other teams.

Of course, this is common practice in F1, but not to the extreme that Honda takes it to. They also seem to have no clear idea on how to improve their performance.

In 2007, for example, Honda tested the infamous "dumbo wings," a huge sign of desperation as they struggled to find pace in a poor car.

This mirrors 2004-2005, where there was the feeling that BAR/Honda had struck on the design strengths of the 2004 car only by chance, and the new aero changes for the 2005 season had wiped that advantage, meaning that the team could not develop their car beyond aligning them with the 2005 regulations.

This failure in the aerodynamic department is consistent to Honda's 'long-term' strategy. Everything they do is for the 'long-term' benefit.

Every year (including unbelievably this year) they claim they are going to be fast the following season, or the year after that. Look how many times Button says next year in this excerpt:

"I think the team's focus should be on next year. If I score a point, it will be a surprise in a way. And we should be focusing on next year, although a lot of the stuff that we are doing with this car is to do with next year." (Autosport.com)

This would be fine if they were achieving such goals, but they never do. Honda never thinks about the short-term needs.

Hence, they don't develop their cars as quickly as other teams and fall back, failing to keep up with the "aerodynamic arms race."

In 2006, for example they went backwards after starting in a relatively strong position and had to pick up the slack when failing to improve their car.

The appointment of Ross Brawn was obviously seen as a long-term benefit, but he also needs to be used in the short term. In Brawn's comment above, even he seems mystified when trying to improve the fortunes of the Honda team.

Such problems have led Honda to their lowest point since entering the sport. At the time of writing Honda face the prospect of another year of effort and time gone to waste...with a slow car and a minuscule points tally.

This trend is not showing any sign of going away, as under the 2009 regulations, F1 is set to change radically.

This does not suit the Honda ethos as their long term strategy does not gel with strenuous rule changes (2005, for example).

Sadly, Honda's problems don't look like they are going to go away anytime soon.

Can Robert Kubica Become 2008 Champion?

Alex Cowley — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:19:58 -0400

With yet another poor race for Hamilton and Massa, Robert Kubica has now become a championship contender. With a fine second in Fuji today the Pole is just 12 points behind Lewis Hamilton in the championship and BMW Sauber are 14 points behind Ferrari. 12 points isn't a lot when considering last year. It could happen again.

While a covert win by Kubica seems unlikely, he has so far been the most consistent driver of the three championship contenders. Drives like Canada, Monaco, Bahrain and Malaysia have shown his ability to keep the car in check but also to keep his head, when some have lost theirs.

Consistency will be the defining point in the championship race as the pressure mounts up and the possibility of rain will give a certain unpredictability to any race weekend. Here Kubica could very well shine.

It's not out of the question that Robert could walk away with the championship while Hamilton and Massa trip over each other, but what are your thoughts? Can Kubica truly challenge for the title?

Sato, Senna, Buemi, Bourdais: Who's the Best for Torro Rosso?

Alex Cowley — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:26:17 -0400

With Sebastien Vettel leaving Torro Rosso for their bigger brother in 2009, Torro Rosso's most important issue is how to stabilise the improvement in the team from 2009 onwards.

Four drivers appear to be lined up for this role which begs the question whether Torro Rosso are looking for experience but also talent to grace their line up.

Takuma Sato

Probably my pick if I was choosing but in a way the least likely, Sato is a proven F1 driver with an impressive record in both lower formula and F1. He also has the experience of building a team around him and creating a strong relationship with a team (Honda and Super Aguri).

Also Sato is quick if a little erratic, although Super Aguri seemed to iron out his erratic nature. In a way he finally become a veteran rather than being the newbie. However bringing Sato into the team would be a major step for Torro Rosso.

Firstly he's not a red bull backed driver and bar Bourdais, Torro Rosso has mainly stayed as the top end of the Red Bull development programme. Bringing in Sato would be a major shift in perspective for the team.

However that is important for Torro Rosso because of the rule changes in 2010, Torro Rosso will have to become a fully independent outfit. Sato would be an excellent choice as he can help develop Torro Rosso just as he helped motivate the Super Aguri team. In essence Torro Rosso would have to change their plans for the future dramatically to incorporate Sato, but I think that they would be foolish not to.

Sebastien Buemi

Buemi is probably the exact opposite to choosing Sato as he has no experience of competative F1 and has no knowledge of building a team around him. He is a product of the Red Bull development programme that means that he is fast, but not fully shaped into a F1 driver (look at Scott Speed, and Vitantonio Liuzzi).

Essentially he is talented and highly rated but would not be the best choice for a team that will need leadership in the next couple of seasons.

However he does have one card, Buemi has driven F1 cars quite extensively in testing, indeed he knows the Red Bull car pretty well and has been one of their primary testers, surely a sign that Red Bull do want to sign him.

Buemi would be more of a risk than Sato or Bourdais, but he does have the necessary talent to become a decent racer, he just needs some time.

Sebastien Bourdais: Bourdais has so far been erratic this season. With his excellent background in the US many (including myself) expected Seb to really hit it off in F1. However so far he has only showed glimmers this season: Australia, Europe and Belgium were all decent drives but apart from that he hasn't been that impressive. However Bourdais does deserve another chance.

Everybody knows he's got talent but can he deliver in F1?

This could be helped by having Sato as a teammate. Not a driver who would threaten Bourdais' position in the team unlike a Vettel-esque teammate but also would help Bourdais to realise his full potential. If he was chosen alongside Senna and Buemi he would be in danger of being beaten by a much younger, less experienced driver again.

Bruno Senna

Mere speculation but it is claimed that Senna is looking all around the F1 paddock, and seeing as Torro Rosso have a seat (or maybe two) Senna must surely be in the frame for Torro Rosso. Like Buemi he has huge talent but doesn't have a huge amount of experience in F1.

He has tested for Torro Rosso but not on the level of Buemi and thus would go into 2009 with the least experience of the four contenders. However he has had quite a bit of success in the lower formula.

Although maybe it would be better if he stayed in GP2 for 2009 and win the championship, just to make himself more attractive to the top teams. Senna, with the least experience of the four, would probably be the most risky option for the team.

So my evaluation? I would personally choose Sato and Bourdais as the best duo. This would however be the safe option as neither look like they are going to become potential superstars like Vettel, although they would most likely cement Torro Rosso in the midfield than a team of rookies.

In which case STR would probably go for Senna sitting alongside Sato, as they look to find security in their development and future but also look to discover new talent.

Bourdais Vs. Massa: Who Was To Blame?

Alex Cowley — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:19:01 -0400

After watching a fascinating Japanese Grand Prix I read on the news that Sebastien Bourdais had been penalised and had 25 seconds added to his race time. This was because he hit Felipe Massa when exiting the pitlane on lap 50. Subsequently Sebastien was demoted to 10th place after an excellent race to sixth.

At the time I saw it as unlucky for Bourdais as he had driven very well to score three points and in doing so beat his teammate. It was an excellent drive for a man who is under serious pressure to retain his seat for 2009. However I also saw the penalty as fair because, from the TV screen, I felt that Massa had been hit by Bourdais while trying to take the racing line.

It seems however that I am in the minority in this viewpoint as some people are claiming that Massa should be given a penalty. In this article I analyse whether the penalty was just and whether claims that Massa acted illegally are unfair.

In a word: Yes, I do still feel that Bourdais was in the wrong. After all he was:

a) At the very best alongside Massa when turning into the corner.

b) Off the racing line and thus Massa had the right of way into the corner.

c) Although at the time racing for position, Massa had still to pit and thus Bourdais had no reason to risk his position in the race by dicing with a much faster car who was a pistop behind. This makes his move up the inside of Massa even more baffling.

These are the three main reasons why Bourdais was rightly punished. Bourdais however claims that Massa was to blame for the collision: "I did everything I could not to run into him and he just squeezed and turned and behaved like I didn't exist, like I wasn't there. What am I supposed to do?" (Autosport.com)

My main argument to explain why Bourdais was in the wrong is that for Sebastien to have spun Massa he would have to have been behind the Ferrari. Had they have been side by side it is logical to say that they would have banged wheels like in Jerez 1997 (Villeneuve vs Schumacher).

Had that been so Massa would have been to blame. However because Bourdais tapped Massa the way he did, Massa was therefore ahead. Couple this with the fact that Massa had the racing line, I came to the conclusion that Felipe had the right of way into the corner.

Surely it is little different to the Massa/Hamilton incident where Massa was given no room by Hamilton, was behind the Mclaren and was forced off the circuit in order to pass Lewis, just as Bourdais was. Would you argue that Hamilton was at fault because he was rightly ahead and did not give Massa enough room? I wouldn't...

But it seems that to many there is little similarity between the two incidents. Some even claim that it was Massa's fault. By that logic you can now be penalised in F1 for being taken off by another driver.

This has obviously developed from the "nanny state" F1 seems to have turned into after Spa, but seriously, how many times have we seen drivers being spun by another in the exact way and it being put down to a racing incident?

Maybe that shows that my own position is not so much attacking Bourdais, as I feel he was merely part of a racing incident, but defending Massa from allegations of bias.

In essence therefore I only back the penalty because I want to defend Felipe from ludicrous assaults. I don't believe that what Bourdais did was particularly illegal. What I do believe is that Felipe Massa was perfectly entitled to take the racing line and in doing so try to keep his title hopes alive.

Quite frankly if an incident where a driver is taken out and some argue is at fault, F1 needs to take a good look at itself.

Nick Heidfeld, Formula One's Most Understated Man

Alex Cowley — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:03:20 -0400

This weekend has shown that Ferrari are no longer the dominant force in this year's championship with a superb fightback by Lewis Hamilton to take his fourth win of the season.

Only the hardiest of Ferrari fans, living a few metres from Monza, could dispute the fact that only Hamilton deserved to win today.

Also, Nelsinho Piquet must be credited who finally got some luck taking a staggeringly good second place. However, superb results again overshadowed another brilliant drive by THE quiet man of F1. I am talking, of course, about Nick Heidfeld.

"Understated" is the best word to describe Nick Heidfeld. The driving style of the calculating German has earned him a consistency that has shown no less ability than some more flamboyant drivers, but realises Heidfeld's potential significantly more.

He is a calculating, precise driver who rarely steps over the limit. That has been a poisoned chalice over the years.

Heidfeld has always been good, but many have overlooked his abilities because of his less than outward style and character. To the question, whether or not he could tell a German joke he merely replied: "there is no fun in Germany."

Maybe it's his German character (not intended as a stereotype) that has allowed him to be so serious and to realise his potential fully, rather than squander it.

Indeed, Heidfeld no doubt knows he is not the best driver on the grid, but every time something goes wrong, he is there to pick up the places. This year in particular, he has pulled out podiums and great results seemingly from nowhere.

Sunday's German Grand Prix was merely one of many. Starting 12th, he and his team were able to play the safety car period to perfection, elevating him to fourth place and challenging Massa for a podium.

What Heidfeld does is consistently give 100 percent, and while not overstepping this marker, he can churn out results for you consistently.

However, some critics do not see this. His seemingly 'lacklustre' driving approach does not compare well to the aggressive styles of Lewis Hamilton, nor the pace of Robert Kubica.

ITV in particular have had a bittersweet relationship with Heidfeld, praising his ability to create results from thin air one weekend, and then criticising his methodical approach the next.

I remember vividly James Allen during the Canadian GP claiming Heidfeld should focus more on racing. His seemingly consistent, conservative approach does seem uncompetitive, but do not forget this was a race which he could have won.

By not losing his head, like others did, he was able to pull a second place from nowhere. It is amazing how easily he does it, and yet he seemingly does not get the aforementioned praise on a regular basis.

However, this consistent approach might possibly be his downfall when it comes to finding that elusive win. For a driver to take a Grand Prix victory, he must have a great car, make few mistakes, but most importantly commit above the limit in order the beat the other drivers.

There is still a question of whether Heidfeld can do that...

Until he does this, he will remain the understated man of F1.

Adrian Sutil's Inspiring Drive in Monaco Grand Prix

Alex Cowley — Sun, 25 May 2008 13:30:57 -0400

Well, it seems my belief that Ferrari would dominate Monaco was mistaken, although after Saturday, it seemed my statement may been a reality.

Overall it was a bad day for Ferrari...With a race that seemed to mirror Australia, Hamilton scampered off into the distance while the Ferraris struggled.

What amazes me is not only the brilliance of Hamilton, lapping over 1 second faster than the likes of Felipe Massa, but also the brilliance of another driver...Adrian Sutil.

Hamilton may have won in "Senna-esque" fashion, but if anything, it was the drive of Adrian Sutil that ranks up there as one of the drives of the season.

It brings out the qualities I like to see in a driver and my belief represents many of the qualities held by drivers such as Hakkinen, Schumacher and of course Ayrton Senna:

a) Takes advantage of a situation when things go their way.

b) Punches above their weight in an inferior car.

c) Shows the emotion of a driver who has the passion for F1.

I believe that Adrian showed all of these qualities in the race today. His ability to get the lowly Force India (now the perennial back-marker with the demise of Super Aguri) into fourth was not simply stunning. We know that Adrian is a good driver in the wet (first in Practice last year in a Spyker at Monaco and eighth in Fuji attest to that), but to be in fourth in the wet in the Force India was sensational.

While James Allen may have nattered on about the brilliance of Lewis Hamilton, his similarity to Senna, and his never ending drive to emulate his hero, it was Adrian who could draw parallels with the great Brazilian.

Mainly, one of Senna's most pivotal drives of his career, the 1984 Monaco GP, where the Brazilian raced a Toleman, not a race winning car, against the might of Prost, Lauda and Rosberg, navigating the tight twisty bends of Monaco in the extreme wet and lapping as much as 4 seconds a lap faster than Prost.

What comparison can be made is that Sutil not only took the fight to the top men in an inferior car but was able to lap most of the race at the same pace of cars he would have had no hope of competing with in the dry.

Yet he was still able to keep the car out of the barriers when former World Champions and race winners failed. He didn't make the mistakes which others made and kept himself out of trouble until that fateful moment with Raikkonen.

Overall, the speed and precision of Hamilton won the day and yet Sutil may get just as much of the admiration as the race winner. This is emphasised by the fact that Sutil has not been the most consistent driver this season and has been involved in several incidents.

In Australia and Spain, Sutil didn't get much farther than the first few corners. Also at times, Sutil has been a bit in the wilderness speed-wise. Yet, he was able to race with such consistency on Sunday that befits a true racer.

Many examples of wet weather driving can be compared to Sutil's performance. I'm sure nobody would say that Jos Verstappen's rise from 18th on the grid to a to as high as second in Malaysia 2001 was nothing short of awe-inspiring.

Secondly, Giancarlo Fisichella who got the similarly mediocre Benetton onto the podium, Spa 2001. Sutil's ability today rivaled many such brilliant underdog drives.

What also endeared me to him was his passion after the terminal shunt with Raikkonen. Moments like this show there is still passion in a sport that many dismiss as dull, repetitive and bland. It's moments like those that prove there is still the passion and excitement left in F1, possibly a by-product of such events as Monaco.

It shows that Sutil is not only a passionate and talented young racer, but also a true racer in the mold of some of the great racers of our time.

Overall, Adrian is a driver who greatly puzzles me. At times he seems to be off the pace, and yet inspirational moments come to him from seemingly nowhere. Sunday was such a moment, and hopefully it won't be forgotten for a long time.