Bob Barnard Track Engineering

It used to be that a "Grand Prix" was THE motorsport event of the year in a particular country, and each country was supposed to only have one such event. Now we know Bernie has got around that with F1, and here in the US you can and do call anything a Grand Prix, totally devaluing the name. Dorna is not only emulating Bernie but has gone straight passed him in the search for the mighty dollar with now three races in the US and four in Spain. Half the World Championship is run in two countries? Italy only has two, which is surprising given the popularity of Rossi. Can the US support three GP's given the lack of interest in the National Series? There are suggestions that Indy is in trouble, but at least they run a real GP with all three classes. Laguna only pays for the top class to come, and I know it will upset a lot of motorcyclists who see this place as the Phillip Island or Assen of the US, but might they just be the one to go?

"Circuit of the Americas?" Sounds like it should be in Costa Rica or Bolivia. Setting some high standards for this track, let's hope it delivers. I staged an event in Australia back in '88 with Frank Sinatra and Whitney Houston in two concerts, and a whole range of top sportsmen and women over five days. We were silly enough to call it "The Ultimate Event," which it was and still is, but the media spent six months trying to convince the public it wasn't. Hard to fight that. Still Tavo and the boys seem to be in a honeymoon phase. India has done something similar, naming the circuit "Buddh International Circuit," invoking a connection to Buddah.

Bernie is not letting up on the engine debate, and Jean Todt is learning that just because someone voted for it they can change their mind. This is F1, they will do what they think is best for their team now. Bernie has a powerful ally in Montezemolo who continues to agitate for larger engines, a move away from too much aero, and a return to testing. Once he is President of Italy with Alonso as his Prime Minister then it will get interesting.

My buddy Allen Petrich asks a good question. Why are teams allowed to charge the KERS system before the start of the race? You cannot use the DRS wing for the first two laps, why I do not know, but let's be consistent, and avoid situations like Webber's, or the disadvantage at the start to the small teams that cannot afford it. Or is this all part of the "lottery" that F1 has become?

Bret asked me to comment on the 107% rule so here goes. Long, long ago in a land far far away where I grew up there was a 107% rule for qualifying in F1. I don't know who decided that 7% was a safe number for cars to be on track in the race, why not 5% or 10%? And why only in the race? In the race they start from the back so they are out of the way for the most dangerous part, the start, and probably by the time the fast cars come around they will be broken down. No, we let them out all day Friday and Saturday when cars are circulating randomly. Is this smart? Anyway, 107% it was and it was set by the pole time, as we did not have today's three sessions. We still had cars qualifying on low fuel and with special engines for most of the time, so the bar was set pretty high.

Then sometime recently the rule went away. I do not recall specifically.  Perhaps it was because the powers that be thought all the cars were so quick it was not needed. Or perhaps because we only had twenty cars we could not afford to lose any to a silly safety rule. It is there presumably to keep cars that are too slow out of the way. Then we had the three part qualifying, and then last year the new teams, who were really slow. So we reinstate it. But how do we measure it? 107% of what? Not pole time, that is set in Q3, no it is 107% of the Q1 session time because that is when the slow cars are eliminated. But why should that matter? If we are worried about their speed relative to the fast cars, then it should be measured against Q2 or 3 when they are likely to have the soft tires on as they would in the race.

But now let's look at the race. Pole time in Malaysia was around 1 min 36 secs, but for most of the race the quick cars could only manage 1 min 42-44 sec laps. We saw a couple of 1 min 40 sec times, but these were the exception, but even with these everyone except the HRT's would qualify. If you took a typical 1 min 44 sec lap then HRT 's fastest lap was 5 seconds off the pace.

So what does it mean and do we care? Bret says that we watch F1 to see the best, and he is correct, but on that basis what of the Williams performance? F1 is a cruel sport, new teams get no help at all, and no sympathy, and perhaps that is how it should be. Bruce McLaren had to go through it, and so did Peter Sauber more recently. You could argue that HRT is not better than the best GP2 Teams, but the GP2 boys do not have to build their own cars. And so the argument could go on.

Let's get back to the real reason 107% is supposed to be there, safety. It is conceivable that cars that qualified OK develop a problem and cannot keep that pace in the race. What then? Presumably the Race Director will decide if it constitutes a danger to other competitors and black flag it, but on what basis? 107% of the others lap times? I doubt it, it will be a judgment call. So why have a number? I know in NASCAR we often see the "walking wounded" come back out after a wreck and try to earn points, and often they are black flagged as too slow. So why not just write a rule that says "in the opinion of the Race Director the car is not maintaining a safe speed?" If we cannot trust Charlie then we are in trouble.

That's the problem with rules, as soon as you write them there are lawyers looking for ways around them. Look at yesterday's piece about the F1 finances. Bernie said once that the less rules the better, then no one can argue about whether they broke it. We saw the crazy 6mm under the car rule, well those of us old enough did, where the cars were blatantly not 6mm off the track when racing, only in pit lane. Now we have the Red Bull flexible front wing that visibly touches the track and mechanics are seen repairing the bottom edge, but it meets the rule. Ferrari are going to build one, so it must exist. Why not write a rule that says "no part of the car may be seen to make contact with the track at any point during the race?" Then instead of test weights and carbon fiber lay up we just rerun the tape in the Stewards room, game over. But that would be too easy.

Well that was fun, not. Web site and blog hacked this morning so late in writing this up.

We keep hearing that the DRS wing is going to make overtaking easy in Malaysia, but it is raining. Even if intermediates are on the car the wing cannot be moved, so it has to be totally dry for us to see if it works better than Oz. With less than twelve hours to first practice there is little to stir the emotions.

It seems the financial writers are no better at working out what is going on with F1 finances than I am. Pit Pass web site points out that the increase in the gross income does not jibe with the extra that should have been generated by the addition of Canada and Korea, so it would seem the race fees went down last year for all, or some. Pit Pass promises to give us the real story soon. There are stories that the teams are going to push for a 75% share of the gross in the next Concorde Agreement due shortly. That will put a dent into an already bad situation for CVC.

Jean Todt is cranking up the rhetoric. My friend Allen Petrich actually may have hit on what he is up to, make the F1 name so devalued that the 100 year rights are not worth having, and the FIA can start another Championship. Jean was talking down the audience numbers today, saying no one is watching because the tracks are boring and racing is bad. Pushing the 1.6 l Turbo down Bernie's throat could also be part of the plot. Does anyone know what GP2 is going to run when that happens? Is GP2 going to stick with the current engines, and will they be more powerful? I see that Renault has come out and said that they are increasing fuel usage due to the need to keep feeding the exhaust driven diffuser, about 10% more per race. That's really green isn't it?

Abu Dhabi is also looking to make changes to the track layout to help overtaking, and make it suitable for MotoGP. That is not going to be easy, but who do they have doing it? Why Mr. Tilke of course. Now, isn't it the definition of stupid to do something the same way twice and expect a different outcome?

The earning figures for Formula One are a big story today, with Bernie and the teams getting a raise in income. But there is something wrong here that I need an accountant to explain. My arithmetic obviously does not work in the world of accounting. The gross revenue for F1 is reported at $1.08 billion. The teams received $658m divided between them, not equally of course. Bernie received $7.9m and the net income is $296m. So $117m seems to be an operating cost. It is then reported that CVC LOST $660m! Now to my mind this means that CVC's costs are $296 + $660m, yes/no? Now CVC is a venture capital group, so apart from some management fees, this must be interest on the debt? Is that possible? No wonder they are looking to sell F1. What am I missing?

Joe Saward has a piece that goes a bit further into illuminating the ever shifting world of F1 management.

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/

Formula One Administration has just transferred the F1 rights to a sister company Formula One World Championship, which is owned by Bernie's holding company SLEC which is in turn held by - well read it, I do not have enough space. Eventually we get to Delta Topco Ltd which has CVC and others as shareholders. You could lose a lot of money going through that lot, which is presumably the point. Other snippets is the sale of Instanbul Park between internal companies, presumably the F1 track the Turkish Gov't couldn't make pay, for $1, yes one dollar, an $11m write off apparently, but then how much did the Gov't write off? What does that say about the value of all those other monuments to ego and foolishness called F1 circuits?

In other news the Brazilian Federation has asked the FIA to look at the Interlagos track. Pedrosa has had successful surgery to unplug an artery trapped under the ironwork put in his shoulder after his accident last year. Let's hope he recovers quickly and is back in form to mix it with Stoner and Lorenzo. Jan Magnusson's son is setting fastest times in F3 testing, and Tony Fernandes is saying the name row is hurting sponsorship. I know how he feels, sponsors do not like uncertainty, especially over the person selling them something really has the right to it. I had exactly that problem with Eastern Creek when the owners were trying to sell sponsorship for the MotoGP that I was promoting. By the time that was sorted the time left for sponsors to exploit their investment was so short the value was greatly reduced.

Rain is forecast in Malaysia for the F1 race, fancy that, and in the monsoon season too. So, no movable wing and no more answers as to how it will improve overtaking, but there will probably be enough in the wet anyway.

Kimi had his first taste of NASCAR truck racing at a half mile oval and apparently did well. It was behind closed doors, so no real information is available, but it does not sound as if he stuck it in the wall.There are reports he is paying $100,000 a race for the ride, but I'm sure a sponsor will be all over that.

The final corner onto the straight at Interlagos, home of the Brazilian F1 GP, has always bothered me. The drivers cut across pit entry to get a faster line on basically a blind corner, and then the wall on the exit of the corner is right on the edge of the pavement. We have seen crashes here in F1, but not as many as you would expect, so it was one of those deals that seemed OK even if it looked bad. Well, I should remember my own words, if it looks bad it probably is. A motorcyclist died earlier this year and last weekend there was a fatality in a stock car race, the third fatality on four years, at a time when racing is generally being spared. There are now calls to modify the corner, but the problem is not easy to fix. The track is very close to the boundary of the property on the outside, and there is a steep drop off on the inside. The corner is great and re-profiling it would not be appreciated by the drivers, but nor would dying. Not a simple fix.

Jean Todt is flagging a revisit to the fees CVC, aka Bernie, paid for the hundred year commercial rights to F1. The fight over engines is apparently just an opening salvo, and Jean is giving notice he is standing for re-election. I bet Bernie will be working away behind the scenes to put his own man in there.

I love the fact that the Russina GP track is "well on track." Well the race is three years away so why shouldn't it be? The best bit is the "Final Feasibility Study" is going to the IOC. Last time I looked they did not run F1 races. And wouldn't you do the feasibility study before you signed a contract for millions of dollars to stage an F1 race? Silly me, this is just the study to make sure you can run a Winter Olympics and an F1 race within a few months of each other, not whether it is going to make money. We all know that answer don't we?

Has everyone caught up with what McLaren were trying to do with their trick exhaust before they gave up and copied Red Bull? "The Octopus" was what it was called. Instead of collecting the exhaust into two pipes from eight, it split them up and fed them into areas of the underfloor to provide the perfect exhaust diffuser. It was all a bit too complicated, and like a lot of complicated things in F1, they could not get it to work. Some of the best cars have been the simplest, the FW07 for instance. Don't think they have forgotten it though, so look for a revisit sometime this year.