SofaF1

On the ITV website they have a form card which they publish before each race. It has a little round up of how each driver is doing and then has a list of all of each drivers most recent results like this:

Last five race results: 1st / 2nd / 2nd / 1st / 2nd

The only problem is it’s backwards. Or at least it seems to be to me. That’s the record of Alonso and he won the most recent race he didn’t come second. I just think when you read that you’d naturally assume that the results were going in the other order – or maybe it’s just me.

I think one of the most surprising discoveries of the season is fundamental differences between the way that the cars have been designed to drive as revealed by the switch of Rubens to Honda.

It really does surprise me that there is such a huge difference between the two teams even over something as primal as acceleration. Jock Clear of the opinion that Ferrari have designed their entire car around the concept of traction control which has meant that their throttle pedal is more of an on/off switch. Whereas the Honda throttle pedal is a very delicate thing which has a wide variety of variation requiring more driver skill. But then he would say that he works for Honda.

The thing about this information is it seems constructed to make you think that one of these is bad and the other is good. And it seems constructed to make you think that the version that hasn’t ever won a grand prix is good and the one that has is bad.

The thing is that the throttle acting like a switch sounds to me much closer to the karting setup that Michael has always favoured as is the twitchy handling he also loves. Michael was also the man who made breaking in F1 more like karting breaking and so on.

So perhaps a bit of karting know how at Honda, in the shape of Rubens will be able to turn things around? Rather than presenting it as a problem with Rubens it might be better to present it as an opportunity for Honda?

Much has been made this and last year of how many points Coulthard has scored, something like the 4th highest ever. He is also, for now, one of the drivers on the grid with the most wins to his name. Are these not poor consolation prizes for someone who couldn’t win a championship? What does it matter if he has scored so many points if he hasn’t done it in one season, consistently? Doesn’t it just mean that he’s been a round a lot? And the amount of wins he has is just circumstanial – we have a very young grid at the moment. Soon Alonso and Raikkonen will overtake him.

Nonetheless, like Alex, since bearded Dave moved to Red Bull I have liked him a lot more, mainly because of his humility, and I’d like him to have one more win, maybe round the twisty streets of Monaco?

Monaco is race which holds many attractions for me. It’s supposed to be the most glamorous of the occasions of the calendar but that’s not really the thing that I find attractive about it. The thing about it for me is much more its unadulterated feel. The glamour has protected this race from change. This is certainly a race that has a preserved feel about it. Something in the glamour and the pomp and circumstances allows it to be so dangerous and get away with it. (Actually the fact that it seems so dangerous makes it safer than other races in some ways – people have been very well behaved here for many years because of its throwback feel).

My favourite memory is from a long while ago, ten years to be precise. It is one of the races that I remember above all else. Somehow because of my age and when I came to the sport this one race at Monaco stands out. It was the grand prix of 1996 and in that race only 4 drivers finished. And Olivier Panis won in a Ligier. It was an incredible race. If anyone has it on video I would love to see it.

I’m not sure it was my favourite race ever. It was a race that I just will probably remember forever.

What’s your favourite race of all time? I’ll try and decide on mine too.

Max Mosley has talked again about his ideal version of Formula 1 in an effort to dispel talk that he has too much control over what’s happening in F1.

His argument goes something like this: “I’ve wanted to do this crazy thing to Formula 1 for about 20 years and I’ve never been able to do it so clearly I don’t have too much power. Because if I had all the power then I’d have done it by now”.

So what’s his crazy plan?

His plan is kind of simple in it’s craziness. He doesn’t want any driver to be tied to any team. He wants the teams and drivers to be split and he wants the drivers to race at every single team during the course of a season. This, he argues, would mean that you would get a true sense of the abilities of a driver. Because nobody could ever argue that the driver won only because of the best car. He would deal with the problem of their being more races than cars by simply saying that after every driver had had a race in every car the driver at the front of the championship would be able to decide which of the teams (one race each) they’d like to race with for the remaining races of the season. Then the second driver in the championship would decide and so on.

To be completely honest, when I first heard this idea I thought: “that’s just so crazy it might just work”. I really thought that it seemed to answer the problem that so many have tried to deal with for so many years, the problem which is that the best driver has the best car.

Other than the obvious Formula 1 enthusiasts response to this which is that Formula 1 is a team sport and the separation between drivers and constructors is artificial. I suddenly realised today what the fundamental problem with Max’s idea is. I knew there was something. It had been nagging at me ever since I heard it the first time, but I’d never been able to conceptualise it. But I suddenly thought of it today.

The problem is that if the driver vs. car selection at the beginning of the season is essentially random then the problem is that the best drivers wont be racing on the circuit. The drivers will be in randomly assigned cars, what we won’t see in this situation is Michael fighting Alonso fighting Kimi? Because if Kimi’s in a Ferrari, Alonso’s in a Toyota and Michael’s in a Minardi then it’s not going to be a straight fight. Sure we’ll all find out who the fastest driver is. But we won’t find out who the fastest driver is until the end of the season. The strength of mind to deal with a formula like that is beyond most. I myself might love the complexity, as I love the perceived complexity of qualifying this year. But I’m not sure the sport would have any mass appeal. If you need a spreadsheet to understand what’s going on then it isn’t really going to have broad appeal.

Why is it that so much of the media refer to Jenson Button as an “F1 ace”?

I’m not necessarily referring to TV as I don’t believe I have heard the term used on ITV (even from James) and I don’t see any F1 coverage on any other channel, I still can’t even get Channel 5!

Many newspapers though seem to use this term quite liberally.

When I hear the word ace (referring to a person rather than a playing card or a tennis match) I immediately think of a fighter pilot. My limited understanding of such things would suggest a fighter pilot who had shot down five enemy aircraft.

Now, don’t get me wrong I am quite happy for this term to be applied to a Formula 1 driver. Indeed it doesn’t take many leaps of imagination to suggest a multitude of parallels between a fighter pilot and a Formula 1 driver, especially regarding beating the opposition, which is the primary aim of both (surely?)

To pursue a direct comparison though, would it not be reasonable to only use the phrase to describe a driver who had actually won some races? I’m not sure why in the fighter pilot case it would be five (if indeed it is!), and I’m not saying it should be specifically tied to a number either, but five race wins would be a good measure to prove that wins aren’t just a fluke and would hopefully demonstrate some consistent form.

Here’s a collection of my favourite F1 quotes from the last few weeks.

This one was from Metro, where they had had an interview with Bob Bell from Renault. The article was called:

“Bell tolls for Ferrari”.

James with, “Villeneuve is looking like a cuckoo in someone else’s nest”.

and

“David hasn’t made the top ten in qualifying let’s see how Louise asks a question about it”

and from the ridiculous to the sublime. This one from Martin Brundle, “Renault are in a one horse race against a prancing horse”.

As usual the worst thing you can ever hear in a race is when James says “Lets just enjoy this for a moment”. At that point he just stops talking – which to be honest isn’t very much like commentating.

Martin Brundle, commenting on the (allegedly) bending Ferrari rear-wing, made an interesting point last week: ‘Maybe we’re looking in the wrong place. Maybe they’ve got something underneath the car that’s giving them high speed on the straights.’

Indeed they do. Just look at the fine adjustments they’re making to how the air flows under the car: Autosport Spanish GP Technical Review. Perhaps all this fuss about the rear-wing is bluff by the other teams, whilst they look at the underneath? They’re throwing the press off while the real battle is going on under the cars. Geoff Willis has been very secretive: ‘But there is a clear picture coming, which I cannot share with you, that some teams are aware of and most are not.’ Perhaps he was talking about the tyres, perhaps not.

He goes on to say: ‘All the teams are going to have to adopt the same set of interpretation of rules if they are going to be competitive’. Where does an interpretation become against the rules? This has always been the genius of F1 designers: pushing the absolute limits of the rules. Honda tried last year and failed. Have Ferrari got away with it?

Qualifying has, this season, been very successful. And although certain SofaF1 correspondents (mentioning no names Nick) would like to see it stay as it is, the odd tweak to the format in the third section aside it is a great format.

(Personally I’d like to see the final section be the same length it is now, with the ability to go beyond the end of the session for the last lap, but the teams have to declare driver start fuel before they start on that session, but you go out on low fuel. That way you’d still get the mixed up complications that make it all fun but you’d get a pure lap pole.)

But that isn’t really what this post is about. This post is about what might happen at the next race. There are three things we know about qualifying at Monaco from previous years:

1) It’s really difficult and dangerous to deal with traffic on a fast lap.

2) The track becomes faster during qualifying more that most other race tracks.

3) It’s so difficult with overtaking that it was the only track where even single lap qualifying caused difficulties with slowing traffic (Montoya and …).

So for this race coming up qualifying is going to be insane. Everyone is going to wait as late as possible and everyone is going to b needing to be on the same track as everyone else and at least one of the big names is going to be behind everyone else.

Everyone who hasn’t won is counting on this factor to win the Monaco grand prix. Jenson thinks he’s a dead cert, Kimi must be odds on, I mean even David thinks he’s going to win it.

My guess? Massa’s first win? Why? I have no idea.

Does anyone else feel a little bit suspicious about the engine dropping on transit? It seems, to me, very much like a Mafia hit.

Whatever the truth, Villeneuve is still worried about what Fisichella might do next: “I hope there are no games going on, because it could be very dangerous, and if something like that happens, it could be massive.”