It’s Sunday and Em’s spent the weekend playing volleyball in the sun. I’ve been inside working on code. I’ve paused to watch the Grand Prix, hoping it’ll be a good one, but after 52 laps (with 21 to go) I have to say this is dull. It’s like watching an episode of The Simpsons or Friends, because every shot I’m thinking “hey, haven’t I seen this one before?”.

The problem is this: the current rules and regulations have resulted in a race where overtaking is rare, so it all happens in the pit. This means that to understand how the race is panning out, the viewer must be fully aware of the varying relative speeds. There’s nothing exciting to watch, so the excitement has to be psychological.

Adverts however, serve to dismember any continuity, breaking up this strategic game into a stunted mess.

The current F1 format which relies on awareness of relative track positions is fundamentally unsuitable for interrupted coverage.

A Tale of Two F1 Races

The 2005 F1 GP was a complete shambles and the resulting derision of F1 did no favours to the sport. This year, the race has more than six divers, but there’s little more action then last year.

This entry is testament to just how dull the race is. After all, if it was anything more than dull I’d be watching it like a hawk. Something needs to change if F1 is going to hold onto public interest.

A Commentators Nightmare

James Allan, half of the ITV-F1 commentary team summed the race up as follows:

What happened last year is in the past, and this has been a wonderful homecoming for F1.

James most famous predecessor, Murray Walker, is famous for saying the wrong thing, but Mr. Allan is bordering on insanity – either that or he feels it’s necessary to spout garbage rather than allow a moment’s silence.

Todays race was pitiful; with no overtaking on track, there was a lot of piffle-spouting required to full the dull gaps; somehow, to his credit, Martin Brundle stays honest and objective; thank heaven for small mercies.

Oh, Schumacher’s just won, that’s nice for him, but really, who cares?

Hopefully the FIA F1 Survey will get enough suggestions to make the sport fun again.

The battle for the 2005 F1 Drivers Championship looks like it’s a two horse race, but so far, one of the horses is getting all the luck. The table presented here compares the relative preformance of 2005′s two top drivers, as well as a providing an alternative (speculative) championship score that takes account of car failure. The table shows that the current second place driver, Kimi Raikkonen, could easily have found himself in the top spot had his car been more reliable. It also highlights that the two championships (one for drivers and one for constructors) have a scoring system that penalises drivers for their team’s poor reliability, but is more forgiving of the teams.

The first table shows the current, official standings in the drivers championship, as of every race so far, alonso hs led Raikkonen. The table tat follows details the luck that has befallen these two drivers. It would appear that due to reliability issues, Raikonnen could be considered to have had significantly worse luck than Alsonso, who seems to be experiencing a charmed season: or to put it another way, his car has good reliability, so well done Renault.

The final table brings these speculative results together and illustrates that if reliability issues were removed from the drivers championship, then the drivers standings would be significantly different; with Raikkonen leading Alonso.

Compare the speculative points-difference with the real points-difference, the swing is surprisingly large.

Understanding the tables: An Example

As of race 12 in Germany, the gap at the front of the Drivers Championship is 36 points, but the gap at the top of the Constructors Championship is only 22 points (Renault on 117 ahead of McLaren-Mercedes on 95) . A child can do the maths and tell you that the constructors championship is closer than the driver’s, yet it’s the drivers championship that is most adversely affected by reliability issues: because the loss of the car for a driver affects 100% of their points earning potential, but only 50% for the constructor. In terms of percentages, the gap in the constructors championship is also smaller – a bad race for Renault against a a McLaren one-two would reduce the constructors gap to 4 points, but on the same weekend the best Raikonnen could hope for would be to reduce gap from 36 to 26 points – in this case that’s an 82% improvement for the team but only a 28% improvement for the driver.

To see how this situation affects drivers, imagine McLaren are running P1+P2 (18points) and Renault are in P3+P4 (11 points). If the lead McLaren fails, then instead of gaining a 7 points they lose 4 points to Renault.

From the driver’s perspective, say it’s the lead car that falls off the road (and for argument’s sake lets say it’s Kimi with Fernando in third place). Kimi only stood to pull out a 4 point lead over Fernando before his exit, but if his car fails he loses 8 points.

So it’s harder to gain points and easier to lose them in the Driver’s Championship, and critically, reliability affects the Driver’s Championship more than it affects the Constructors Championship, so the drivers championship is won by reliability not speed.

Drivers Championship Reform

For the reasons outlined above I’d strongly support reform to the driver’s championship.

Several alternatives spring to mind:

• Perhaps a return to the old system where a driver could discard his worst three results from the season.
• Alternatively, a penalty system could be introduced where the constructor is docked points for failing to complete a race due to hardware malfunction; however such a rule might be difficult to enforce, so a nice combination of the two might be if the constructor was forced to discard their three best results, which would then require them to strongly favour reliability over absolute top speed, this would help to equalise the cars and put the race-winning emphasis back onto the driver.

If you have any observations about any of the races that could help improve my specluative table, or ideas about how the drivers championship could be made more reflective of the on-track results, then please chip in on the comment form below, there’s bound to be bit’s that I’ve missed or not accounted for yet…

The withdrawl of 7 teams from the USA F1 GP is a certainly milestone in the history of F1. The chain of events that led to the withdrawl really began when Ralf Schumacher crashed on Friday.

Voice of America:

Ralf Schumacher of Toyota was ruled medically ineligible for Sunday’s race after crashing heavily in practice Friday [due to the failure of his Michelin tyre]. The German driver suffered a serious concussion and two broken vertebrae [in an identical crash on the same corner] in last year’s race.

Tyre manufacturer Michelin had not brought a suitable lower performance backup tyre for the teams, which they are allowed and recommended to do by governing body. When last minute replacements did arrive and proved un-race worthy the teams (with the notable exception of Ferrari) asked for an extra chicane to slow the race down at the critical corner where Schumacher’s tyre failed. The FIA refused whilst all teams were not in agreement, so only six cars raced.

What the press said

Associated Press:

Any chance F-1 had of capturing the American audience was crippled.

The Sun:

It was not the scenario needed in a country, where the sport is desperate to be accepted, or in front of the largest European TV audience of the year because of it’s prime-time slot.

The Arizona Republic:

Formula One’s welcome – what there was of it – may have run out in this country after maybe the worst imaginable weekend for the sport at the U.S. Grand Prix in Indianapolis.

What the officials said

Max Mosley, President FIA. Reported by PitPass.com:

The FIA offered [Michelin] options which would have allowed them to compete safely within the limitations of their tyres; for some reason they chose not to accept these options. As a result Formula One and motor sport fans throughout the World are the losers today.

Joie Chitwood, President, Indianapolis Speedway. Reported by The Indianapolis Star:

There is no commitment to bring F1 back next year. That will be reviewed in the coming days. We’re as much a victim of what transpired today as the fans are. Mr. Ecclestone is aware of our position and our unhappiness today.

Bernie Eccletone. CEO, Formula One Management Ltd. Reported by The Sun:

The future of Formula One and Michelin in the United States is not good.

Flavio Briatore, Renault. Reported by Fox Sports:

We want to be big here, we want the Americans to love us. This is not going to help us with this market at all.

Paul Stoddart, Team Principal, Minardi. Reported by Fox Sports Fox Sports:

This was a sad day for Formula One. The damage is immeasurable. F1 has done some crazy things lately, but this one will have far reaching implications. All this talk about stupid regulations, all the interference in the sport, it needs to stop now. If it doesn’t stop, what we’re seeing here this afternoon is exactly where F1 is heading.

What the drivers said

David Coulthard, Driver, Red Bull Racing. Reported by The Scotsman:

It is tragic for the spectators and I have no words to describe how damaging this is for Formula 1. I am sick in the stomach to be part of this.

Jaques Villeneuve, Driver, Sauber Petronas. Reported by Motorsport.com.

Probably every car would have blown their tires, which is also dangerous for the crowd. So, it was a Michelin decision, and that was the only decision they could make.

On the FIA

David Coulthard, Driver, Red Bull Racing, in The Scotsman:

The responsibility for causing the problem is down to Michelin but it was down to the FIA to find a compromise. They had the ability to change the rules on safety grounds, they had the power to make this happen, but they did not do it.

Paul Stoddart, Team Principal, Minardi:

The cure was there and it was not taken up by the top person in Formula One who had the power to allow it to happen, in my opinion.

Pat Symonds, Executive Director of Engineering, Renault. The Sports Network:

We couldn’t compromise safety and I’m afraid other people couldn’t make compromises that would have allowed us to race today. On behalf of everyone I apologize to the American public.

Michelin & The Tyers

Sam Michael, Technical Dirctor, Williams. The Deccan Herald and The Indianapolis Star

The tread comes away from the casing. It’s a bonding problem [that] was evident on several cars, usually after about 10 laps. The only solution is to have the chicane…if that happens, Michelin will approve the tyres to race. They will not give approval otherwise,”

Rubens Barrichello, Driver, Ferrari. The Indianapolis Star

[A Chicane] would have been more dangerous. That would have been silly.

David Coulthard, Driver Red Bull Racing in Sporting Life:

Michelin have screwed up. They should have been penalised in some way so that the Bridgestone runners could get the points they deserve and we could get a motor race and the sport can put a show on for the fans.

Jarno Trulli, Driver, Toyota (Pole Position)

We couldn’t avoid this situation — we were in danger and we knew it. It was very clear that Michelin runners couldn’t race today.

Christian Klien, Driver:

It would have worked if the chicane had been built. But it wasn’t done and if the tyres won’t hold up you can’t race.

Nick Heidfeld, Driver, Williams. Reported by This is London:

We would have liked to drive but if Michelin tell us it’s not safe, we have to follow their instructions. It was clearly their decision. From a driver’s side of things, we could do nothing.

Bernie Eccletone. Reported by The Deccan Herald:

You can’t tell people to do something when their tyre company said you can’t race on those tyres.

Two of the most engaging factors in F1 are that it’s very dangerous and it costs an awful lot of money just to get in the game; so it’s either too risky or too expensive for ordinary people to get involved. It’s the glamorous playground of car manufacturers and independent entreptreneurs.

F1 became notorious because it presented the best racers, engaged in the fastest, most challenging and therefore the most dangerous racing. Surprisingly, since 1963 the fatality list is remarkably short; as demonstrated by the FIA’s safety analysis. When the Grand Prix Drivers Association (GPDA) was re-formed in 1994, the collective opinion of the drivers forced more significant emphasis on the safety of everyone involved; drivers, pit crew, officials and spectators. The unlikely result is that over the last 10 years the number of accidents has actually increased significantly as drivers push harder in the knowledge that they’ll be safe if they do fall off the black line.

So as F1 has become safer, and the personal risk that drivers take has decreased, the penalty for failing to be competitive has become a financial one. Herein lies the balancing point – push too hard and you risk going off and losing money, push too little and you risk getting a smaller share of the money generated by media coverage and sponsorship.

In the 2005 USA Grand Prix this balance was lost, and F1 suffered what could be a critical blow when 14 drivers refused to compete because of concerns that their Michelin tyres might fail at the flat out turn 13, which is bordered by the concrete walls that broke Ralf Schumacher’s back in 2004. The GPDA, Michelin and the Indianapolis track owner were in agreement that a temporary chicane would eliminate the problem of dangerous tyre wear, but the governing FIA disagreed.

This occured at a time when the FIA, has been at odds with many of the teams regarding the control of the sport after 2007 when the concorde agreement expires; the FIA’s stance is that high costs will render it impossible for independent teams to compete, resulting in a smaller number of teams and thus, the death of the sport. It appears that through some stubbornness that has grown from this slow burning argument, the FIA has scuttled the reputation of F1 in the richest free market in the world; and further estranged most of the major works teams by not intervening in the tyre issue.

Fundamentally today has down that the drivers won’t race if it’s too dangerous, suggesting that F1 is actually a very safe sport, and this is backed up by the FIA safety stats. The problem however, is that without the perception of danger, the whole F1 financial model fails because the glamour disappears.

For a sport that relies on money and danger, today could be the beginning of end.

The shambles of ITV’s 2005 San Marino F1 coverage has been picked up by several of the UK’s newspapers and news websites. Here’s what they’re saying:

Jim Rosenthal, the presenter of ITV’s formula one coverage, sided with disbelieving viewers last night after the channel broke away from the climax of the San Marino grand prix to take a commercial break. The Guardian

Neil Duncanson, executive producer of ITV F1, confessed: “None of us are happy. The Sun

Furious fans flooded ITV with complaints after producers cut away from the action to an advertising break with three laps remaining as the world champion and young charger Fernando Alonso diced for victory. The Mirror

Mark Whittell, a spokesman for ITV Sport, continued to defend their coverage. arguing that they were ‘obliged to include five commercial breaks during a race and that they did not want to take the final break while Jenson Button was in the lead’. However, as the Guardian pointed out, Button lost the lead on the 47th lap of the 62-lap race. Planet-F1

ITV admitted that it was as frustrated as anyone, but that it had obligations to its advertisers. “They are the people that keep things like Formula One on television,” a spokesman insisted. crash.net

Of course you don’t hear or see any of this. You’ve already put your foot through the TV set and are currently en-route to the headquarters of the broadcaster, along with several hundred thousand others, to let said commentator, and his employers, know how you really feel. pitpass.com

Notably, at the time of writing, ITV have yet to mention the debacle on their website.

If you’ve seen other coverage, please post a link in the box below.

I was introduced to F1 by my grandfather, when James Hunt was fighting to be the world #1 back in the 70′s. We always watched on the TV. In those days that meant the BBC with Murray Walker’s insanely eager commentary and every episode introduced by the ominous bass of Fleetwood Mac’s “The Chain”. We watched the British drivers come and go; Brundle, Blundell, Coultard, Herbert, Hill and Nigel Mansell in his Red 5 Williams. We watched Senna and Prost collide as team mates; Senna and Mansell go wheel to wheel; the track invasion after Mansell’s home win in 92, and the shock of Senna’s death in ’94. My grandfather incidentally was such an F1 nut that he had a scale model of the McLaren on his television, so as a four year old, Formula1 was something that was just a part of life: and a very exciting part of life too.

In contast, the last few seasons have been poor. Those of us with F1 in our veins have found this difficult to admit, but the dominance of Ferrari has made the spectacle less interesting for all but the most ardent follower. To become an F1 fan you must first be ensnared by the action, and drama, before learning of the technical complexity, the strategy, and the psychological deulling that are as important and absorbing as the on-track action.

I am therefore delighted to be able to say that the 2005 F1 season has, so far, been fantastic. A combination of changes to the rules has meant that the starting grid has been interestingly shaken up, and that has resulted in some scintillating racing. To paraphrase something Nigell Mansell once said, F1 is a Racing Drivers Championship, but what we want to watch is Racers, not Drivers.

Today’s race at San Marino gave us a race; and what a fantastic race it was. Schumacher had qualified badly and was in the middle of the field, whereas Alonso, the championship leader was in pole position. As the laps ticked away, and the cars peeled off for their pitstops, Schumacher, somehow, stayed out. He was carrying way more fuel than his peers, so as they re-joined the race, heavy with fuel, he had a light car and leapt forward from 12th to 3rd.

What followed was a 30 lap chase where Schumacher ate into Alonso’s lead by 1.5 seconds every lap. We commented that the last time we could remember a race with this potential for a granstand finish was “that time Nige’ was 18 seconds down and pulled back a second a lap on Piquet”. Several laps later, the ITV commentator James Allen recalled the same race. They knew what was in store too.

This is what great F1 is about. Knowing that every corner matters; every entry has to be good, every apex hit, every exit clean. Schumacher had it all to do, and he delivered lap after perfect lap.

The tension build for 20 laps and with around 12 laps to go Schumacher caught up with Alonso. What followed was a car chase that puts anything Hollywood can create to shame.

This was electric.
This as real.
This was live.
This was the championship leader against the 7 time world champion, in a race to the flag.

As the 10 laps ticked off, Schumacher’s Ferrari edged closer through the corners and the Alonso’s Renault clawed back breathing space on straights.

This, is the stuff that hooks people on F1. This is what makes it a global phenomenon.

This, with 3 laps to go, and the tension thicker than gravy; this, according to ITV, would be a perfect time to interrupt the coverage for a few quiet advertisements.

We sat there numb with shock. ITV returned in time to catch most of the last lap. The tension, the excitement, the anticipation, the enjoyment… had been destroyed.

Immediatly after the race had finished, only minutes later, the commentators handed back to the studio who cheerily suggested that we viewers should rejoin them after another ad break to see the last 3 laps of the race.

Somehow, somebody in ITV has failed to understand that watching the three climactic laps that we just missed, after the race has been won, and we know the result, is entirely pointless.

We switched off the TV so that ITV could not advertise to us, and turned it back on after two minutes later in order that we might see the driver interviews.

This got us to thinking….

The BBC used to provide us with uninterrupted coverage of F1. The only reason that ITV can afford to outbid the BBC is because they can sell advertising. ITV therefore need to come up with an alternative means of advertising that does not ruin the race, or they need to step back and leave it to someone who can.

Now, market forces are such that ITV are not going to stop their coverage, or change their way of working unless there is commercial pressure to do so – so we’re going to start that commercial pressure ourselves, by turning our television off for 30 seconds during every advert break for the rest of this F1 season.

Yes, as of today we’re going to boycott the adverts that ITV show during F1 and we invite others to do likewise.

Stick that in your post race analysis ITV.