A Bit Of This & A Bit Of That

Friday 15th August 2008

With the summer break upon us PF1 readers are putting their thoughts down on what can be done to improve Formula One, from tyres to refuelling ban to a possible safety car solution...

Send us your views to: letters@planet-f1.com

Passing In The Pits Isn't Overtaking
Thanks DC. Since 1994 when DC and refueling started in F1 and the death of Ayrton Senna. F1 went really boring. Followed by Schumi's dominance. 2007 and 2008 have been great compared to the previous years, but it would be some much better with a refuelling ban. Cars would test tuned not just to go fats around a track, but to be capable of overtaking too. Enough of overtaking during a pit stop. That is NOT racing.

And we would have a more exciting qualifying with low fuel, as it doesn't matter how much fuel you qualify with, at the start it will be fueled to the top.
Tulio, London

Talking Tyres And Refuelling
Every time people call for this or that to be done to improve the racing, they always seem to forget a key element in the equation. That being the "marbles" that build up at the side of the circuit. Until that is addressed no matter what is done elsewhere, drivers will still find it next to impossible to overtake. The Canadian GP was once the best race for overtaking due to the design of the circuit (long straights and straight breaking zones leading into slow corners), and even that circuit has had it's overtaking reduced dramatically due to the excessive build up of off line garbage. And of course, had Massa tried to pass Hamilton on the outside of turn 1 later in the race it would have ended up very differently due to his inability to put the power down off line. Until the FIA and F1 address the nature of the tyres and how they break down, we will never see an improvement in overtaking.

That being said, I'd keep refuelling as that is not such a boogieman in my opinion. I think the problem is that the recent rule changes regarding qualifying and tyres force all team to be on roughly the same strategy. If the teams were allowed to run light in Q3, and the teams didn't have to use both compounds during a race, I think we'd see varying race strategies which would really mix things up. I'm sure people remember the days of Schumacher and Hill, where Benetton were able to win races via their strategy and superior pit work even though their car was inferior to the Williams. And there was a great deal of excitement in wondering if Schumacher could make his strategy work and then in wondering if Hill would be able to catch him. And I think we might be able to see similar things if the teams were given more freedom with their race strategies.
B.A Ford, Florida

A Possible Safety Car Solution
After seeing some silly lottery style results due to the safety car's arrival, I've pondered over a solution and think I may have a fair (and safe!) solution. Which also shouldn't punish the likes of Heidfeld and Barrichello as seen this year because they needed fuel, then were penalised and lost out.

When there is an major incident, all the cars are flagged to the pit lane immediately at reduced pace. I am unclear of the technical issues of remaining stationery for 5-10 minutes but either engine coolers and tyre warmers can be used or not, but the cars will remain outside their garage until the track is deemed to be 'green'. The leading team racer will be ahead of their team-mate.

Since all the cars are timed accurately on every lap, if an incident occurs on one particular lap then the drivers can simply be released from their pit garage position by the exact gap between drivers from the lap of the incident. It would also be easy to calculate the timing to allow for the different team garage positions to the end of the pit lane. So on occasions drivers may be released in close succession down the pit lane (not an uncommon site anyway!)

Each team could be given a pre 10-second countdown to start their lollypop countdown. For drivers that needed fuel at that very point, they could then refuel after the 10-second period.

This system would retain the initial gaps attained by the drivers before the incident, and nobody would gain or lose out in these circumstances. Perfect!!

I hope you like my idea (that is if it hasn't already been thought up already) I think the current system is really unfair and needs a radical change, Piquet 2nd in Germany!! You can't begin to contemplate how much that buggered up my F1 fantasy team!
Ben Barclay

Has Cost Cutting Helped At All?
In my opinion the cost cutting has done nothing but damage F1. It is already very similar to GP2. They should perhaps rename F1, call it F2400 or something, because that is exactly what it is.

In F1 teams used to have (as far as I know) unlimited development scope and as much testing as they wished. Wouldn't it be nice if Renault for example could turn up in Valencia with an engine that produced an extra 150 bhp. Teams have now condemned themselves to only being able to make pathetic aero, suspension etc, changes that get them a couple of tenths. That's not exciting enough for F1 and is against the nature of what F1 is. F1 is supposed to be cutting edge in every way, which it isn't.

If some teams can't afford it then tough, I'd rather see them drop out and have five teams in F1 who can afford it with exciting cars. Cost cutting will reduce interest in F1, which will reduce how much sponsors are willing to pay, then further cost cuts will be necessary, F1 will disappear.
Jason, UK

Yet To Be Convinced By Rosberg's Potential
Yep, he has bagged 8 points in the Drivers; championship but so has his "junior" team-mate Kazuki Nakajima, a promising driver, but still in his first year of F1 compared to Rosberg's third.

I'm yet to be convinced Rosberg has what it takes to become a world champion, and I would think teams like McLaren and BMW would ask themselves the same before offering him a contract.
Jean, South Africa

Ferrari Are Going Downhill
It was not too long ago that driving the red car was a sure sign to win a race, not so anymore. You have Kimi Raikkonen that all he thinks about is Vodka and driving Rally, you have a Felipe Massa that is brilliant one week and stinks the next, and even more problematic, you have Ferrari engines blowing up again!

The worst thing Ferrari did was to let Ross Brawn go to Honda. He was instrumental in getting the bullet proof reliability in the Italian car, he wanted to be team principal, and Luca had another Italian (Domenicali) in mind. Italians want to have an all Italian squad, but since they are more interested in form rather than function, they have never been very consistent. Ross Brawn gave them that consistency by continually driving the engineering staff until he got a reliable car.

Well now he's gone to Honda and soon you will see a Honda up front, all he needs is drivers, and signing Alonso could be a great coup that jus might put them over the edge and into winning form, once there, Ferrari and McLaren will be playing catch up for a long, long, long time.
Ed Garrido, USA

That Alonso/McLaren Saga
The McLaren "detour" for Fernando Alonso was doomed from the start. A good question would be why they wanted to bring him to McLaren in the first place. A 2X WDC was going to expect at least fair treatment and full support from the team. That most likely was promised but delivered in name only.

McLaren had "groomed" Lewis Hamilton for a F1 seat for years, and once they saw he could handle being there all of McLaren's sentiments and (not so subtle) support went over to Hamilton - even to the pit crews' avid support for Lewis rather than Alonso - TV images broadcast around the world do not lie . Even before the blow up in Hungary a year ago, Lewis was throwing his toys from the pram over not being allowed to "race" in Monaco and various other issues. In essence, Lewis' position was to hell with the team, I want what is best for me. And despite their mantra, there is nothing fair and equal at McLaren and certainly not when it came to Hamilton.

Then came Hungary 2007. The events are well documented and yet the racing fans still debate who was right and who was wronged. The fact is that McLaren were in the midst of trying to deny (cover up) any wrongdoing in Stepneygate and to that point had succeeded. But then Lewis obstructed Alonso in qualifying - even after the team finally directed him to move over. So, Alonso, who by then seemed to feel it was hopeless to expect Ron Dennis or anyone else to reel in Lewis' behavior, blocked Lewis in the pits in retaliation. But Lewis (and his ever present father) were not taking that lying down, and to hell with the good of the team. They marched off and cried foul to the stewards; the result was to put Lewis on the pole and Alonso in P5 instead of McLaren having P1 and P2.

Alonso arrived at the track the following morning and learned of the decision. He and Ron Dennis had it out - loudly and in public. Choice of words in the heat of the moment is never carefully thought out, but Alonso threw down the gauntlet - in effect get this mess under control or let me out of here. And he brought up the Stepneygate affair in public for all to hear. Alonso was not involved in Stepneygate, but he had learned that the story McLaren had been putting out was not true through information he had received from test driver Pedro de la Rosa. Having been publicly outed and in a panic, Dennis went running to "report himself" before someone else could and the roof fell in on McLaren.

After that it went to hell. In effect Dennis ostracized Alonso in every way possible (while pretending to be fair and equal of course), trying to transfer the responsibility for the Stepneygate fine to a driver who had not been involved but who had learned too much along the way. Was Alonso not a team player for his outburst at Dennis, or was it Dennis own damned fault for letting the whole mess - Stepneygate and the cover up and the driver favoritism get out of control?

It was clear by year's end that a divorce was in order, and it was the best for both sides. It was also clear that McLaren should have kept Lewis in his place a bit better and supported Alonso at least equally. They would have had a WDC and a constructor's championship. If people try to heap the mess on Alonso it is unfair. The culprit is Ron Dennis. It was a textbook case of mis-management and abdication of his duties to the team. Ron has always played favorites when it comes to drivers. But never with such disastrous results as in 2007.
Joseph Finley

Stop Them, Ferrari & Others
Heikki's win was not underserved at all, but it was lucky. Let's face it, and many will probably say it's a result of Lewis getting favourable treatment from the team, but he has trounced Heikki so far this year. Heikki knows it, and is willing to be No. 2 to Lewis - after all it still beats being No. 12 or whatever in a Renault, and in your second year of F1 at that.

His problem though, will lie in the fact that if Lewis just keeps ahead of him, like Michael did to Rubens, he will get many podiums for sure, but never be a world champion. Maybe he's happy with that.

I hope Ferrari can stay with them, and even a few other teams in the mix next year, so we don't enter another period of total domination but by McLaren this time. It's obvious with their driver line up that's exactly what they are planning.

Jean de Chalain

As For Those Who Write In...
I cannot believe some of the nonsense spouted by increasingly partisan fans on your letters page. Depending on who you read, Heikki Kovaleinen won the Grand Prix because:

a) "The Scuderia made some stupid thing to complicate its drivers!!!"
b) "He drove well enough to put himself in a position to take advantage of Massa's unlucky puncture". (What puncture?).
c) "He drove conservatively (set on a solid third it seems) but was gifted a win".
d) "He is willing to play second fiddle and not complain about it".
e) "McLaren have obviously decided it is far easier to focus on Hamilton and have an obedient number 2"

Another of your correspondents made scathing comments about your race report including: "all you have to say is "underserved" and move on to how Lewis saved his season by grabbing an extra slot or two after the tire blow-out". Did this person misread the opening line of your race report? It clearly stated "Heikki Kovalainen's steady pressure on Felipe Massa finally paid off as the Brazilian's engine failed him just two laps from the end of the Hungarian GP, gifting the Finn his maiden win". A pretty accurate assessment in my opinion. You also reported that when Hamilton's tyre blew (lap 42) Kovaleinen was 25 seconds behind Massa. Yet on the lap when Massa's engine blew (lap 67) he was only 6.7 seconds behind. Over 18 seconds gained in 25 laps sounds to me like a driver applying solid pressure to the guy in front. Such pressure may (or may not) have contributed to Massa's engine failure. Who knows?

Rather than absorbing this interesting information, another letter writer was more interested in telling us that Hamilton: "proved himself to be one of the luckiest drivers in F1. He picked up a puncture a couple of laps before his scheduled second stop and made it to the pit without beaching the car or picking up damage. Then his rival for the race (who seemed set to take the championship lead) retired with a blown engine". This is the kind of luck I don't want!

Who can say for sure that it was Massa who lost the race win due to bad luck? It seemed to me that the battle between Massa & Hamilton was far from resolved and was shaping up to be very close indeed. But, as someone clever once said, "to finish first, first you have to finish". The name in the record books is Heikki Kovaleinen, and it deserves to be there.

We have a very exciting Championship between two very good teams and four very good drivers. Enjoy!
Leigh Woolford, South Wales

Post to del.icio.us

E-mail Article Print-Friendly Version Subscribe to Letters RSS Feed