Bob Barnard Track Engineering

They say money makes the world go round, and it certainly makes the F1 world go round. In fact it has enough money to go around, it just isn't being split up correctly at present. The Resource Restriction Agreement, RRA, was raised again by Horner, and Whitmarsh continued in the  "we must be more relevant and not be seen as gas guzzlers" vein. F1 engines are I believe the most efficient engines around when you consider the power they produce from each gallon, and not just look at the miles per gallon. And there is that old "relevant" again. I guess the World Cup is relevant because most of us have kicked a ball around at some time in our life, but there again most of us have driven a car.

Bernie in responding to the Mayor of Melbourne about the value of an F1 GP compared it to the Olympics and the World Cup, and as far as the Olympics goes he is dead right. I was in Barcelona in 1992 and watched the Sydney Games lead up, and what a con job that is. Go and spend $6 bn  on facilities you did not need and will not use again for two weeks of exposure that no one cares about afterwards. At least you get an F1 race each year. The World Cup  has been different as the stadiums are used afterwards, although we now have South Africa looking for someone to run them and Qatar building stadiums in the desert.

Mark Hughes writing in Autosport the other week said "The sport can't afford to allow money to haemorrhage out." His article concentrated on the cost to promoters of staging a GP and where that money is going. The basic problem is it is not going back into the sport, it is going to a bunch of investors who have done no more than buy the rights. No one begrudged Bernie making a lot of money, he built this sport over many years and with his own abilities, and made others rich along the way, but the current situation with CVC is unsustainable. Hughes questions how many new countries there can be that will keep paying for GP's, and when the existing ones will get tired of it, like Malaysia and Bahrain. Now I met both those track chiefs in Cologne last year and they are already asking those questions. In Bahrain the Parliament is asking what they get for their money, and the circuit chief has a good answer. "What would it cost us to send everyone who watches the race a postcard?" It is a good argument, and has worked till now, but for how much longer? Malaysia says it has achieved it's objective of putting the country on the world stage, now they need the track to make money.

Joe Saward asks the question what these latest popular uprisings mean for F1? It is OK to go to all these exotic places with loads of money, but how safe and stable are they? Apparently there are stirrings in Bahrain today, and the F1 circus is headed there shortly. Would a new popular government be so keen to spend millions on a rich man's toy?

In a somewhat related article Sebastian Vettel is asking if the wheel has turned too far towards making F1 a "show" rather than a sport? Movable wings, KERS buttons, all to make the show better, but not for the driver. Alonso does not think it will be any easier to pass a car that is similar in speed, only those pesky back markers, and as I said a week or so ago, timing when to turn the wing back at the start of the braking zone is going to be a tricky problem, with some drivers missing it in early testing. So, we are spending loads of money on "widgets" that we are not sure even work. OK, KERS or some form of energy recovery system is going to be part of future automotive design, but that is being developed in spite of F1, not because of it. Porsche and Williams kept on developing their system when F1 had given it up.

So we have a situation where there is an incredible imbalance between the three parties to the deal. The promoters are not making money, the teams are getting some of the money coming into the sport, and a third party who are a silent partner effectively is creaming most of it off. Is this sustainable? Add to that the alienation of the traditional supporters of the sport by removing the opportunity to see it live and pandering to an elite who will lose interest and move on to the next big thing. Ask NASCAR how that is working for them. And while we are at it let's think about the "Car of Tomorrow" where the rules are so tightly proscribed it is almost spec racing. The teams spend enormous amounts on the smallest, silliest parts just to gain a thousand of a second, and as soon as they find it the part is banned. Does any of this sound "relevant" or "sustainable?" Oh yes, and now we are to have tires that wear out faster to make the "show" more fun, is that being efficient or relevant, or even safe? Interesting how the word "green" has disappeared from most of the motorsport vocabulary, apart from good old ALMS.

Not Jenson, the ones on the steering wheel that control everything these days. I questioned a few weeks ago if we were not making life a little too complicated for the drivers, KERS and movable rear wings now added, and Ferrari's Aldo Costa has said yesterday that the demands on the drivers has reached a threshold to being unacceptable. He said the Overtaking Working Group had been evaluating in the simulator whether drivers can physically manage all these components, and then there is the mental gymnastics to know when to use what, and if you are. On a much simpler level, when I was racing my Morgan it had the Jaguar gearbox to which it was possible to add the electronic overdrive, quite illegally of course. Not only that we could make it work on every gear, not just the top, so I could split every gear. This was particularly useful on first to second which was a huge gap. The problem was I could not always remember whether I was in a gear or an overdrive gear!

Pretty amazing that the first four at Daytona were within a few seconds of each other after 24 hours. Yes the cars are pretty much constrained to the same level of performance by the rules, and you might expect close races over a couple of hours, but over 24? It is a tribute the level of preparation, pit work, driver skills and a lot of luck to avoid trouble. That is a lot of variables, and as we saw at Le Mans last year it is easy to get it wrong even for teams as professional as Audi and Peugeot, so well done.

We are getting the first look at more F1 cars today with the two Lotuses, or is that Loti? Then there is the Sauber and a tease of the Mercedes. Not keen on the Lotus Renault black and gold and red. Too heavy on the gold, Team Lotus had a better look but of course they have gone back to the green and yellow. Nice looking car though with some interesting tabs around the side radiator openings. You can sign up for "Lotus Notes" which has nothing to do with IBM, and see what some of the fans did with black and gold designs, very good some of them, better that the professionals at Lotus Renault. Anyway, they will all be on track soon enough so we can see who has it right this year. It is interesting that most seem to have stayed with the push rod suspension rather than follow Newey with pull rod, even though it was designed before the diffuser became de rigueur.Team Lotus say that the T128 pushes the boundaries, especially the suspension, "lighter and more efficient." Colin would have liked this, sounds as adventurous as he was, too adventurous according to most drivers. Sir Stirling Moss said a week or so ago that Lotus meant "wheels falling off."

It is interesting that Michael Schumacher said he was not alone in getting motion sickness in a simulator, a lot of top drivers get it. I don't feel so bad now.

Great article on Superbike Planet today about Lorenzo's visit to the Kenny Roberts school of hard knocks at his ranch in Hickman. I included the training school in my book, and my frequent visits to the local urgent care with would-be racers, and how Kenny will stop the race as soon as he is leading. Lorenzo is reportedly shocked a guy 30 years older can beat him. Silly boy, he needs to realize Kenny can still beat anyone over a short race, say a lap! Here is the link.

http://superbikeplanet.com/2011/Jan/110117krlorenzo.htm

Sir Frank Williams, a gentleman of a similar age and will to win, is considering floating the Williams team. This could relate to Joe Saward's story yesterday about Qatar Holdings being interested in a connection with Williams. More power to Sir Frank, who is emphasising that this does not mean he is stepping back from his role in the team.

Now we hear today that Boullier is considering Grosjean as the "third driver" for the Lotus Renault team. Surely he means fourth? Or is it a tie for third with Fauzy? Strange doings. And Peter Collins is now saying his driver Luizzi  may not drive in F1 this year, so can we finally sort out who is driving Force India before the test starts in 12 days time? Sutil and Di Resta with Hulkenburg as the third presumably.

Terrible to hear about Dean Stoneman's illness, and I'm sure we all wish him a recovery to rival Lance Armstrong's.

Sounds like an interesting evening at the Sydney Speedway a week ago with Tony Stewart getting into an altercation with one of the track owners and the police getting involved. My old mate Garry Rush is also an owner of that speedway, and I could sell tickets if he and Tony got into it. Another dynamite old racer who can still do it when required, and I'm sure he will not mind the "old." They used to say "there are old racers and bold racers, but there are no old, bold, racers." Not sure that applies anymore. Perhaps he and Tony could have sorted it all out with a match race?

Martin Whitmarsh has stated that the FIA and FOTA will not let the movable wing "fail." They will "tweak" the rules, which as I have been saying, remain unclear, but here is perhaps the best explanation from his interview with Autosport.

"Drivers will have the system primed in the race when FIA-monitored GPS technology tells them they are less than one-second behind the car in front at a certain point of the circuit. This only becomes valid two laps after the start of a safety car restart.

However, to ensure that the wing boost advantage is not over-egged, the FIA will only allow use of the wing's speed boost at a single zone on the track. This will be carefully monitored and controlled to ensure that overtaking still remains a challenge - and this area may not even be on the main start-finish straight."

So, only in one spot, and the boys will know which zone that is and hopefully so will we. Drivers can use the KERS system either to defend or to help with the wing's reduced drag. So is this going to be better or not? Are they all going to drive around behind another car waiting for that spot, and not try anywhere else? Is that better than no overtaking? I'm sorry, this all seems contrived, like Bernie's "short cut" idea. Let them move the wing whenever they want. What happens though when to overtake at the end of the straight the driver leaves the wing in low downforce too long? His braking is compromised so he will lose out at the corner, or worse go off. Is the FIA going to have another "trigger" to turn it off at a safe distance from the corner?

It is still the "silly season" it seems, with a Spanish web site sending false messages about Santander buying in to HRT. So not to be left out I will pass on a bit of fun I read in Nigel Roebuck's piece in this month's Motor Sport about a pilot coming in to land at Gatwick and announcing to the passengers "Welcome to Gatwick, the only building site with its own airport." That struck a chord with me, it seems every airport in the world, at least the ones I go through, are building something. You hear about problems for airlines making money, but the amount of travel must keep going up to warrant all this building.

Seems like no one is happy about what is happening to the Nurburgring, and nor should they be. A friend, Allen Petrich, asked the question about how the current drivers would fair on it against the likes of Nuvolari and Fangio, especially if they had to drive those old cars. He suggests building a new Auto Union and letting the youngsters try to match the times the old guys set, but it occurred to me that some bright programmer must be able to simulate a race between these guys. There is always going to be talk about who was really "the best" which is usually defined by whoever is doing the talking, and it makes for good discussion and often argument, so maybe we do not really want to find out?

In other bits and pieces Adrian Newey says the RB7 will be an evolution not a revolution, but Red Bull might build its' own engine one day. Don't know why you would want to do that with the new regs being sold as the way to bring the likes of VW and the Japanese companies in. Ferrari is really the only chassis/engine manufacturer that has succeeded on a consistent basis, but perhaps Mercedes will change that, and what of McLaren? BMW, Honda, Toyota and Renault tried it, with Renault the only modern success story, but even they really did not build the chassis.

HRT's engineer says KERS is an inefficient system and is only being used in F1 for the manufacturers to sell it on their road cars. If it is inefficient on F1 cars why is it not the same on road cars? The Williams flywheel system seems efficient enough for Porsche, so perhaps he is just talking of the electrical systems. I am all for using the energy out of the current engines as efficiently as possible and think we are still scratching the surface. Gordon Murray's town car just did London to Brighton on less than a gallon, which must be getting close to 100 mpg, and not an electrical cord in sight. But if we are going to all the trouble and cost of developing these systems and putting them in a race car why are we limiting the amount they can store and when they can use it? It just seems another "push to pass" deal, why not just use the energy as efficiently as you can whenever you want? That rewards the best engineering, which is what most of us want to see, until the FIA ban it.

Talking of HRT they are going to use the 2010 car for the first test so they can try out drivers. Yeh right.

Niki Lauda wants Sutil and Hulkenburg at Force India. Well I suggest he buys Force India, then he can have who he wants, until then who cares and why do we keep reporting what Niki wants? It's like Mosley, just fade away.