With only a handful of days before the 2008 season starts we’ll finally be able to identify the pretenders from the contenders. Despite the hype and some of the lap times set at tracks in the warmer parts of the world, the pecking order in F1 will remain the same as it has been.

Winter testing times might have hinted that fans could expect some real movement up and down the grid but single lap times need to be taken with a grain of salt. Renault and Toyota topped the time sheets at various venues but they won’t be on the front row of the grid in Australia. Torro Rosso and Force India were occasionally mid-pack in testing but don’t expect them to be trading paint with BMW or WilliamsF1 any time soon.

Success in Formula 1 is seldom instant, especially when the rules are as static as they have been the past few seasons. The traction control ban will result in more driver errors but these will be experienced by all the teams so it will balance out over the season. Typically, teams only make giant leaps backwards in performance from year to year - just ask Honda.

To really assess a team’s chances of success, it’s important to look at a team’s performance over several seasons. Were they quick but unreliable last season? Have they found reliability over the winter? Do they have the budget to continually develop the car? Is there continuity in the team with both drivers and designers? If the answer to all of these questions is yes, it might signal a readiness to move closer to winning. Might.

Over the next few days I’ll explain what I believe each of the F1 teams (hopefully 11 when we arrive in Melbourne) will achieve this season in F1 and why. There’s no science involved in this process, it’s all alchemy, beer and too much time spent on the internet. Enjoy!

The Front Runners

Ferrari - 2007 championship winners and dominant team of the decade, Ferrari look unlikely to suddenly come off the rails. Both drivers are returning and Kimi Raikonnen, who in mid 2007 looked shaky is now brimming with confidence in himself and his car. The team has had excellent form in winter testing and no major changes have taken place in the management or design departments. Clearly the team have shown that there is life after Ross Brawn and Michael Schumacher.

Like every other year, the coffers are also overflowing with cash and there will be a steady stream of development happening all season long. Verdict: Clear favorites to retain their titles.

McLaren -After a disastrous season that saw the team disqualified and one driver quitting at the end of the year, McLaren will be focused on steadying the ship and consolidating their efforts around Lewis Hamilton - regardless of whatever equality talk there is. McLaren had a strong technical package last season- it was off the track where things came apart. Neither driver has much experience developing or setting up the car and thanks to the spy scandal, there are some design restrictions around the 2008 car that might additionally hamper its ultimate development. Verdict: McLaren are the only team able to challenge Ferrari. Challenge, not beat.

Next: The Midfield

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

One of the great paradoxes of Formula 1 is that because of the introduction of so-called cost cutting measures designed to keep teams from ‘buying success’ through massive spending on research, the rules are in actuality creating an environment where only the richest teams can compete.

In its infancy, F1 was ruled by ‘Grandee’ teams like Alfa Romeo and Maserati who were also car manufacturers. These grandees were initially the only ones who had the resources to build race cars but within a decade they were facing strong competition from small, specialty companies who would build a few race cars and compete for prize money. Enzo Ferrari scornfully called these teams, ‘Garagistas.’

From the early sixties until the turn of the century, ‘Garagistas’ like Cooper, Lotus, Tyrrell, and McLaren (before the Mercedes partnership) were the kings of F1, staying one step ahead of the Grandees by adapting new technology into their cars. Because the technology was cheap and available, nearly anyone could participate and be successful. So successful that Ferrari, the longest competing ‘Grandee’ of them all, failed to win a World Championship for 21 years before the pendulum started to swing back.

The reemergence of the grandees like Honda, Renault, BMW, Toyota Mercedes (via McLaren) and Ferrari at the top of the sport has coincided directly with the introduction of the cost cutting rules that dictate the type of engine, transmission, tires and electronics that can be used in F1.

This standardization has created the perfect environment for the grandees to compete in. Because there are so few areas where teams can introduce new innovations (something the Garagistas excelled at) the manufacturers have found an advantage in exploiting small performance gains found only by exhaustively refining their static designs. This process can cost millions of dollars per tenth of a second of performance – millions the independents don’t have.

For those fans that admire the drive and passion of the independent teams of F1, these are dark days in the shadow of the Grandees. The last best hope for survival of the Garagistas doesn’t lie in cost-cutting but in throwing out the design rules altogether.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I read an article on Pitpass.com (an independent F1 website) yesterday that has me pondering the importance of F1. Actually the importance of the name F1, rather than the sport itself. The article, which you can access here, suggests that Formula One Management czar, Bernie Ecclestone might have plans to change the F1 series’ name to GP1. This would create a hierarchical structure with GP1 being the top tier of a racing ladder above GP2 and a possible future GP3 series - all of which Bernie owns the trademarks to.

For me, Formula 1 is Jim Clark four-wheel drifting a Lotus through a bend at Spa, Fangio exercising sublime control of his Maserati around the Ring or Senna driving beyond the limit in the canyons of Monaco - I could go on and on. I can’t think of F1 without seeing those images and a thousand more in my mind’s eye. F1 is as much about the past as it is about next season’s champion or tomorrow’s race winner.

The danger of changing the name - in the collective minds of the public, it now becomes something entirely new. When even die-hard fans examine grand prix racing, we only go as far back as 1950 - we discount everything before. Of course there was no formal world championship before 1950 so it’s not completely fair to say only that the name is to blame for this historical amnesia but there was the European Championship in the 1930’s which was essentially the grand prix world championship.

In my opinion it’s vital to preserve the continuity of the sport. How many people today really know the names Nuvolari, Rosemeyer or Caracciola. Each was a legendary grand prix driver in the early days of the sport. But, once the sport was labeled Formula 1 and a world championship was established, they were consigned to the past. Only the real anoraks of grand prix racing recall their exploits.

Other motor sports have suffered from name changes. Sports car racing suffered from an identity crisis when season after season, the name of the series (and format) changed -incidentally one time at the behest of Bernie Ecclestone. Likewise, after the split in open-wheel racing in North America, CART became Open Wheel Racing Series and then finally Champ Car. While there were many factors that contributed to the demise of each series, the inability of the public to easily identify them hurt their popularity.

If Formula 1 suddenly becomes GP1, most of the current fans will no doubt accept it as status quo. The same participants will be there as before: Ferrari; McLaren; Williams. Would new fans make the same connection and balance the racing against nearly 60 years of rich history? What connection would fans have with Lotus, Brabham, Tyrrell, Senna, Villeneuve or even Schumacher?

History and sentimentality have rarely prevailed over business interests. It is no secret that Bernie Ecclestone has tried several times and at great cost to trademark the names F1 and Formula 1. He has, for the most part, been unsuccessful because of the generic nature of the phrase, “formula 1.” The name GP1 is a brand however and Ecclestone could successfully argue ownership. Financially, this would be lucrative for Bernie, who could license the name as he saw fit and deny its use to anyone not willing to pay up.

I hope that the article from Pitpass proves to be idle speculation and that Formula 1 can look forward to a long and distinguished history. Business concerns seldom enhance sport and I worry that this particular strategy by Ecclestone could destroy the heritage of the sport. It’s only a name, but so is Ferrari. How iconic would a Ferrari be if tomorrow it was renamed a FIAT Ultra Brand Sportscar.

If you have an opinion on this topic, please post your thoughts in a comment here or e-mail me at rob@f1underground.com

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

After reading Max Mosley’s most recent interview on Formula1.com I have a real craving for waffles. I have no idea why. Maybe its because when an organization like the FIA fines one team 100 million dollars for stealing intellectual property, lets another IP thief off with a warning and then declares that the next team caught will get the boot, I think, “what a bunch of wafflers!”

McLaren is a racing team that builds a few very exclusive cars. They couldn’t afford to walk away from F1, or worse, get kicked out when they were found to be in possession of Ferrari data so they accepted the fine, ate some crow and were allowed to stay and play the game. When Renault were found to be in possession of McLaren data however, they got a mild slap on the wrist. Why? Because Renault is a car manufacturer that owns a racing team. One is vulnerable, the other is not.

Max can’t wield the heavy stick with the car manufacturers because he needs them to stay in the sport - now more than ever. F1 isn’t particularly healthy at present and he can’t afford to drive competitors away or simply kick them out of the sport. Under Mosley’s cost cutting formula, its now too expensive for new replacement teams to come into the top tier of racing - just ask Dave Richards who owns Prodrive - a very successful motosports company that was suppose to be starting in F1 this year but shelved the project over costs and instability in the rules.

Publicly, Max is talking tough but in the board room, he must be navigating a political minefield. McLaren was a convenient whipping boy and their case got the message out to the other teams about cheating. To the casual observer maybe it even looks like the FIA have their house it order.

I believe the opposite is true and it would only take a similar confrontation with Ferrari to prove how weak the FIA’s position is - despite the constant hyperbole in the press. Would the FIA threaten Ferrari with expulsion for any reason, real or imagined? No! At best the public would get a whitewash, a la the Renault incident and at worst, a pathetic excuse about how none of the rest of us really understand the sport or the rules.

A new season is almost upon us and I look forward to a feast that includes fairness, and competitive spirit, not waffles or sour grapes. Now pass the syrup, Max.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Max Mosley has seen the light…or jumped on the budget capping bandwagon. In either case it looks like F1 is going to follow other major league sports by trying to manage how much teams can spend to win. No specific details have been released but according to Autosport.com it is known that engine costs, marketing and promotion and team principle salaries will not be part of the cap.

The F1 fraternity has 1-2 years to work out the system but you can believe that the devil will be in the details. F1 teams are notorious for finding loopholes in technical regulations and they will no doubt expend huge amounts of money and energy looking for ways around the budget cap. Its just in their nature.

Interestingly, Ferrari initially opposed the idea of budget caps and may still be against the idea. They were in favor of other cost saving initiatives like capping the number of wind tunnels a team could have. Ferrari are the only front running team with just one wind tunnel while Williams, Honda and McLaren all have two. Convincing the Italian marque to change its position could not have been easy and its possible that concessions needed to be made to get them to agree to a cap -or still need to be made.

An early suspicion is that driver salaries will quickly fall under the ‘marketing and promotions’ umbrella and be exempt from the cap. Its easy to imagine Kimi Raikkonen or Lewis Hamilton being paid a pittance to drive but millions to be in ads, to wear team logos and to attend sponsor events.

Its too soon to say how serious Formula 1 is about a budget cap but like the ‘green’ movement, there is a lot of political mileage in the idea. Getting rid of the perception that F1 is about how much money you spend can only be a good thing for the sport’s image.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!