Shanghaied?

This past Sunday in Shanghai was significant.    I suspect it may be looked back upon as the day F1 changed forever.

Those who have passionately followed the sport for decades have witnessed a fairly straight forward "formula" evolve into a politically charged enterprise that brings more annual legal revisions than the US Congress.

In recent years, we've become accustomed to each new season bringing a raft of new revisions to that formula.  Some stick . . . some don't, passing into obscurity under the tireless tinkering with what I might contend wasn't broke to begin with.

However, following three Grands Prix into the 2011 rule book, quickly obsolete tire compounds and a DRS enabled spectacle in China, F1 has crossed into a place from which it can no longer return . . . and I wonder what this means?

Don't get me wrong, I thought the Chinese Grand Prix was fantastic.  Regardless the loss of Bahrain, F1 2011 felt like ages in the making.   Australia was fantastic, as was Malaysia.   I'd bet the only real fear anyone had going into Shanghai was just how quickly Vettel would run away with it all.

I've personally voiced concern that F1's rules makers have grown too reactionary.    Heck I'm so old school that I still have never found a truly legitimate reason to drop the original points system of 9-6-4-3-2-1.    IMHO, it remains the perfect mathematical representation of each finishing position to the rest of the field . . . and every single iteration from that has been a digression.

Oh well.

Take a look at the attached BBC Post Race snippet.

Is Webber suggesting that the fight we witnessed in Shanghai was not real?  Is he merely playing the humble sportsman downplaying the significance of his drive through the field from 18th place?

Regarding the age old complaint over the lack of overtaking which gave us Shanghai 2011, I counter that F1 rarely makes the 6 o'clock news because it requires an appreciation born from dedication to sublime skill over slick, manipulated . . . at times scripted . . . entertainment.

Following F1 has always inspired my imagination.   As a result I've developed a suspicion that those like myself who watch from the infield may not truly experience what it is like to fight for position, wheel to wheel.

The seductress is speed, at once portending the starring role yet potentially spoiling the plot as inconsequential.    It marvels those who witness, but ultimately requires patient command from those who practice its craft.     I might argue that F1 drivers are ironically the most patient beings on the planet.

As a result, the occasional late braking maneuver of year's past was rarely casual, and I wonder if the specular shine of quickly degrading tires and DRS will  fade into the everyday ho-hum of instant gratification.

The often outspoken and controversial F1 legend Niki Lauda previously referred to DRS as the "most stupid idea."  

For now, I'm glad it's here, however I think time will tell whether Lauda and Webber are onto something.

Mini Cooper WRC launched!

Fantastic to see Mini Cooper back in the World Rally Championship.     I'll be following their progress closely.     The Prodrive effort features two solid drivers in Dani Sordo and Kris Meeke

Observations, Round 2

Perhaps it's the high definition, but I previously did not realize there was quite the degree of elevation change on the very fast left right sweeper leading up to the back straight.     IMHO, Sepang is a great circuit.    It offers at least four, arguably five turns great for overtaking not to mention two long straights excellent for exploiting tow.

Pretty good race.    I could not help but notice (perhaps due to DRS) that there was so much overtaking that it all started to look a bit easy . . . a personal fear previously noted.

Great to see Heidfeld fight so hard to live up to my early praise (LOL).    Poor Petrov.    His race looked more like the Vitaly of latter 2010.    I like Petrov.    It's clear to me that he's a good guy.    Unfortunately, he appears prone to brain fade in the mold of the Monza Gorilla, Vittorio Brambilla.    I had to laugh at Brundle's bemusement when Petrov kept his foot in it returning from his off course excursion late in the race.    

Fortunately, Petrov was not injured but it reminded me of a cynical moment in the "Road Warrior" when he found himself holding a completely useless steering wheel.

Kubica.    The Lotus Renault is strong . . . and for all we know he might be leading the championship now.     Let's hope he continues to recover and returns sooner rather than later.

Not up on the details regarding the penalties handed down to Hamilton and Alonso, but off the cuff my take on this embarrassingly awful moment was that it was purely a racing incident . . . the FIA should not penalize racing.  

I've watched the on board several times and don't see any wrong doing on Hamilton's behalf.    I simply think Alonso got caught out by underestimating his closing speed on the McLaren.     On close inspection it is surprising how slow Hamilton appears in contrast to the Ferrari.  

In the end it was a great shame as Alonso put forth an otherwise noble fight to make the podium.     As my friends across the pond might say, "its early days," but I'm hoping Ferrari can pull it together sooner rather than later.  

There was great analysis on the BBC from Coulthard, who demonstrated via recorded engine note Hamilton's ability to take one of the super quick left right sweepers flat where Alonso was clearly lifting.     My impression is that Ferrari historically struggle with grip, and much as in recent years past, the optimum setup for the 150 remains elusive.

Finally, I have to feel for Mark Webber.     I hope his fortunes take a turn for the better soon.

Enjoy it while you can

While careful to not read too much into quotations published with little context, this report strikes several tightly wound cords in my F1 psyche.

Immoderate service to TV ratings is an insult to anyone or anything unique in our world.     Ratings crave the most common denominator . . . and in all bio or mechanical machines, the most common of denominators is usually the lowest.

I must ask, however, why does the FIA care about TV ratings?    I thought that was Bernie's gig . . . his impulse to artificially tweak the entertainment factor . . . from medals to shortcuts to faux rain showers . . . are tough enough pills to swallow already.

I'd love to lay all of the blame at NASCAR's feet, but I can't.     F1 as a whole has spent too much effort in recent years hot after NASCAR's tail.    It is becoming increasingly clear that those who manage F1 may be losing sight of their true audience . . . and more importantly the sport itself.  

Every year we get a new round of massive regulation overhauls alleged to improve a show which used to play just fine on it's own.    Although I think we've been very fortunate to enjoy some exciting seasons of late, I fail to see how today's F1 is better than it was in the 90's, the 80's, the 70's . . . I can keep going back.  

If the ratings are falling, it might be because instead of focusing on F1, these powers are trying too hard to remake F1 in the NASCAR mold.    F1 and NASCAR are very different.    They attract different audiences because of those distinct differences, and if I were invited to the next meeting I might remind Mr. Todt that:

The only car number that should matter in F1 is the number 1.  

Overtaking should be difficult . . . and rare.    It means something in F1.     (I'm so tired of this battle.)

F1 remains the best arena for technical innovation; if the FIA intends to use this fertile ground to sway public opinion, it best do so with a looser grip that allows for more creative ingenuity, and unique variations on the theme.

Simple concern over ratings prioritizes the casual . . . those who arrive late, leave early, and might not come back . . . above a historically astute worldwide audience that will not be fooled.    It's hard to fathom building audiences on a watered down iteration of what I hope won't one day be described as a formerly grand pursuit.

my tower is wobbling . . .

Thought I'd highlight this morning's post from The Axis

This additional article  . . . if true . . . only further confuses me.     Wha . . . ?

I remain completely baffled.    It's tough being a closed minded elitist these days . . .

Dare I suggest . . .

Autosport reports that Kimi Raikkonen will indeed begin testing trucks this week for Kyle Busch at a small oval just NE of Atlanta (my hometown).

Kyle Busch sounds confident in his new alliance, but I can't help but read between Busch's quoted lines in this report.  

It's fair to draw a bit of contrary perspective, and I'm more than happy to do so.

Racing is far more than squirreling around with low down force on pavement at high speed.  

I have no doubt that a driver's ability to quell such an unsettling sense of instability and master the state of "yaw" to competitive advantage merits great respect.

That respect should be however tempered by the ironic truth that braking has always and will always remain the true test of speed.  

Sliding all over the place on a banked oval is very different than dealing with the multitude of physics which work against the ticking clock under braking, trail braking, accelerating through, and out of an apex.

I don't need to overstate the obvious.     NASCAR requires a skill set just as everything else.    To suggest, however subtle, that Raikkonen is taking a step forward rather than across is nothing more than skilled corporate communications.