Bob Barnard Track Engineering

It is interesting that Audi have gone from an open cockpit car to a closed for this year's Le Mans contender the R18, and Aston Martin has gone from a closed cockpit to an open. Can they both be right? Audi have preferred the open cockpit since they built the R8 due to the easier driver changes and less problems with visibility. They had power to burn presumably to overcome the extra drag. Now they say the restrictions on the engine mean they have to minimise drag, hence the closed cockpit. Allan McNish at the Autosport Show said that the petrol cars will be very competitive this year due to Article 19, and that the Aston was already very fast last year. So does Aston now have power to burn over the diesels and can therefore go to the open cockpit? I recall when Tony Dowe was running the Panoz he cut the roof off as the open cars at that time had some rule breaks which if I recall correctly allowed larger rear tires and a bigger fuel tank. Who makes this up? Although it did not have the elegance of the Coupe, it won races.  All part of the "knowing the rules and exploiting them" game that is motor sport.

Every journalist on earth must be at the Autosport Show or Wroom with Ferrari and Ducati. Not sure how much Ferrari and Co. spend on this bash but it is worth every penny in the PR onslaught they achieve at a time when there is not much else happening. Some one must have been in Venezuela to cover Maldanado in the Williams with Hugo Chavez and the deal with PDVSA. As I think Joe Saward commented, there ways of being a "pay for ride" driver without actually paying for it yourself, which is what most of these deals are. So Williams protesting that this is not a pay for play deal sounds a little far fetched. I don't really care if PDVSA give Sir Frank the money he needs to be competitive again  as long as Maldanado does not turn out to be another Eliseo Salazar.

I love Luca di Montezemolo, he says such great quotes. "maybe when others have won 10% of what Ferrari has won, then they can also have their say." He does not think Red Bull know how to behave as Champions, and is also using their overspending to point out the silliness of the RRA. And I love the comment on Brawn winning due to "technical drug taking." F1 on steroids. They presumably grew bigger diffusers.

On the home front I completed the text for my book, so now to find a publisher, edit and select the photos. I need a shot of me on the winners rostrum at Phillip Island in '89 if anyone knows a photographer who was there. I have a concept plan for the Circuit Grand Bayou and waiting on feedback from the client, who at first sight liked it a lot. Busy on a business plan for another project, so watch this space. Don't forget the Circuit Forum in LA in April, the program is just about done and will be out probably next week.

One month you win the FI Promoters Trophy and the next your Company fires you. That's Mr Chung's "reward" for staging such a great event apparently. Most of us could not work out why he got it, and neither can KAVO, the ones putting up the money. "Investors felt that KAVO Management under Mr. Chung could not guarantee success this year." So who did they appoint in his place, the ex-ambassador to Switzerland. An obvious choice.

I've actually been there. In Adelaide we won the same trophy, for what it is worth now, and after the second year I was "let go." It seems the Board thought I spent too much, but my successor is quoted in the next year's program that when there is a problem you just throw money at it to get it fixed. When you are staging a race to promote a State or Country and it starts at 2 pm on Sunday you do what it takes to make it happen. Not suggesting this is what Mr. Chung did, he barely staggered over the start line. In truth he is the scapegoat for false illusions. If KAVO thinks its going to make money on an F1 race then they need to fire the guy who did the feasibility, and as Chris Pook told me, "If Bernie thinks your making money he will put the price up."

There is a very interesting post about England's anti-bribery laws about to come into effect. It seems it casts a pretty wide net over what is considered bribery, and could include corporate entertainment and tickets. So the British based GP teams are concerned that sponsors are going to think twice about handing over loads of cash in future. Australia brought in a tax on entertainment back in the late eighties, which covered company cars and meals etc., but the employer paid it, not the recipient. Could not upset the union members with their perks. Not sure if that is still in play, I cannot see a Government giving up a tax, but it did increase the cost of taking corporate boxes for example, as you had to pay a tax on it instead of it being a tax deduction. All very topical with the Gribkowsky bribery scandal going on.

A line in the quote from Mercedes about the launch of this year's F1 car struck me as odd. "The Brackley based team said its' new single seater." Haven't see a GP car with more than one seat for quite some time.

It appears all our fears about the 2013 engine sounding awful are ill founded. Alonso says he is sure his engineers can make it "sound sexy." This must be a first, engineers trying to increase the noise coming out of a car.

News on the sportscar front has Honda confirming it will race in the LMP1 class while still producing an LMP2 car. It's goal of an outright win at Le Mans by "I can do it without a wind tunnel" Nick Wirth sounds a bit far fetched, but anything that adds to the fight at the front is welcomed. Aston Martin are working to have one of their new for 2011 cars ready for Sebring and David Richards is satisfied that the ACO rule #19 will ensure they can battle the Peugeots and Audis. I will not hold my breath on that one.

Not me, Joe Saward. Joe has decided that as there is so little going on he may as well stop blogging for a couple of weeks. Well I am not stopping except for Christmas and New Year, but excuse me if the news is slim to none.

There are still important items like Petrov being confirmed at Renault, can't quite get used to Lotus Renault yet. That's a good move, and let's look forward to a really competitive car again from them, Kubica certainly deserves it.

It seems the residents in the area where the Rome F1 street race is supposed to be staged are not very happy with the prospect. A very good Italian friend of mine suggests there is more to this story than an F1 race, in fact it has little to do with an F1 race, so let's see how this plays out. Mr. Flammini is a close relation to Machiavelli.

The ACO has released next year's Technical Regulations with the all important "performance leveling" clause that lets them adjust the weight, restrictor size etc to keep the petrol cars within 2% of the times of the diesel cars. Now I know us fans want to see close racing, but this smacks of going down a spec racer path. Sports cars are seen as the last bastion of technical innovation now F1 is so restricted, and I would say many of its fans do not want this stifled. The promotion of new technologies is also the much sought after "green" racing, so why penalize Peugeot and Audi for introducing the diesels ? Let's encourage the petrol cars to improve. What's to stop the diesels from sandbagging in the early races to make sure they stay within two seconds, or just take their bat and ball home if they are not winning? They have invested a lot of money to get to this point, much more than Aston or the other petrol cars I would suggest. When Ford GTs and Ferraris were slugging it out in the sixties did anyone suggest it was unfair on the others? No we just enjoyed the fight. And when the Porsche 956 and 962 were the only car to have, did we complain? Le Mans is always about different classes of cars competing on the same track, so what is wrong with the diesel and petrol classes?

There is also the gentleman racer bit in the LMP2 class and two level GT class. OK to have two levels there I note. Gentlemen racers, i.e. amateurs, usually rich amateurs, have been part of Le Mans forever, think back to the "Bentley Boys." They pay for the cars that pros drive, and make for an interesting strategy mix. Now there are probably some that should not be out there, and that is why there are license standards. Now when I read the reported rules for GT Pro it says that the class is unrestricted whereas the Amateur class must have one gentleman driver and a year old car. So does unrestricted mean just that, it can also be a one year old car and a gentleman, or does it mean three pro drivers and a new car, and who is paying for it? And oh yes, we have performance leveling there as well. Why? It has been the closest fought class for many years now between makes, what do they think will change?

Ducati are concerned with Rossi's potential fitness problems during the testing for next season following his shoulder injury. The interview with the team principal seemed very weird to me, suggesting they would limit his miles on the machine. Surely that is the best way to improve his fitness?

So the World Council approved the new engine and a raft of other changes which sound less cutting edge and more like historic racing. No team orders, so back to pre 2002, and presumably teams can do almost anything except go back to changing drivers during the race as long as no one notices. 1.6 liter turbo engines with revs limited to 12,000 rpm, they could almost go back to using valve springs. Movable rear wings as we had in the sixties, except they can only be used when the car behind is within one second, is that on both cars? An odd rule change is the reintroduction of intermediate tires for 2011. I thought we had intermediate tires this year? A clean up of the under body rules to outlaw the double diffuser, but as we know you cannot "unlearn" something, so I am sure the boys are already working on that one. Oh yes, and the gearboxes have to last longer and the number of engines per year are reduced, so we are on an endurance/fuel conservation schedule, with biomass additives for 2012. Why not make one set of tires last a race weekend while you are at it, or are they still nervous there will be no overtaking and have to have pit stops? Why not just leave it to the teams to choose whether to start on a hard compound and not pit, or a soft one and gamble on making the time up? That is how all this started anyway when Gordon Murray I think it was worked out he could build a smaller, lighter, car and refuel and still make up the time.

At the awards ceremony the Korean GP received the Promoters Award! What for, giving away more tickets than anyone else has achieved, just finishing the track before the Friday of the race? That now devalues anyone else who has won it.

On a brighter note the new Audi R18 looks stunning, like the Peugeot but more menacing. Not sure how the driver sees over those front wheel arches though. I like the way they have incorporated the mandated rear fin, does not look like an add-on like some I've seen. So do we think that is the color it will race in?

Interesting that the FIA approved the F3 International Trophy at a time when the regular series are struggling to gain enough entries to keep going. The Trophy includes Macau and Pau, two great street races, but not ones that all the competitors choose to do, one estimate is that will cost an extra $100,000, or was that Pounds. It includes the Masters at Zandvoort, and the Korean F3 race which was cancelled this year. Why not just run one F3 series so we have enough cars on the grid. They all go to each others countries after all. F3 is a great series and needs to survive, but not sure this is the way to do it. Barry Bland, the promoter of Macau, is the new FIA single seat chief, so no surprise this got approved.

DTM is staging their season finale in Shanghai. Yes I know it is the German touring car series, go figure. They sell a lot of Mercedes and Audis in China, probably more than Germany. This is not their first visit, and the street track was used previously by A1GP I think, with similar results. Problems with the layout. Lots of crashes during the last two practice days, including one terrible one by Maro Engel hitting the end of the pit lane wall. Maro is OK, but most of the front of the car is gone. They changed this and a few other barriers Friday night, and the DTM is going to make more changes tonight. Did they not look at this track before they started? Did the Chinese learn nothing from previous years? Who designs/inspects this? There are a few of us who have done this before, there is no excuse just because it is in China or one of their first races. It is a sad way to finish a season with the race potentially decided by an accident caused by a bad track.

I am organizing a session at the Professional Circuit Owners Forum in LA in April next year to look at the responsibilities and liabilities of designers/owners/inspectors, and the role of the insurer/sanctioning body and the legal profession. This is an ongoing problem here in the US and we need to air it out instead of ignoring it. The program will be out in January so book some time mid April to be there.

GP2 try outs going on with drivers swapping seats faster than musical chairs. Young Joylon Palmer has stepped up from F2 and is running well, while a lot of the usual suspects are up the top of the time sheets whichever car they are in. Brendon Hartley is still tyring to make it past GP2, but I fear he is one of those I mentioned yesterday that are destined to not quite make it. Roman Grosjean, the great French hope that had a shot at F1 is mid pack, while rising American star Alexander Rossi is setting similar times. With the swapping of cars and drivers, are the drivers with money auditioning the team, or is the team looking for the best driver?

Speaking of rising stars, Daniel Ricciardo has been announced as the Friday driver for Torro Rosso at every race next year, so he will get a good bit of seat time. Buemi therefore seems safe, until he messes up. Daniel is to continue in FR3.5 with the aim of winning it in 2011. This is a better deal than going to GP2 and does not throw him in the deep end. Where to in 2012?