The Right Move?

There are a number of reports coming out of Italy suggesting that world champion Sebastian Vettel has signed a contract to drive for Ferrari starting in 2014, where he will race alongside Fernando Alonso.

Vettel, who is currently leading the drivers’ standings and is looking good to wrap up a third successive world title, has been backed by Red Bull for pretty much his entire single-seater career, and apart from one race with BMW Sauber in 2007 where he stood in for an injured Robert Kubica, has spent his whole time in Formula One with one of the two Red Bull outfits.

Since joining Red Bull Racing in 2009, Vettel has won 24 out of 71 races, taken 33 out of 71 poles and won two world championships. That is significantly higher than the amount of both wins and poles that Ferrari (with 10 wins, 4 poles and no title wins) have taken in the same period. In addition, Vettel is all but officially the number one driver at Red Bull.

So it would seem strange that he would leave the Milton Keynes-based team to join the Scuderia and race alongside Alonso who is, and still will be in two years time, the undisputed favourite in Maranello.

It’s also worth considering that 2014 will see huge changes to the regulations in Formula One. Whilst the biggest change involves the introduction of new engines to the sport and could well favour Ferrari over Red Bull, there will also be rule changes which focus on both front and rear wings and a potential introduction of some form of cockpit protection, which leaves plenty of room for the designers to get to work.

There is little dispute that the best designer in Formula One is Adrian Newey. That’s Adrian Newey of Red Bull. No matter what possible advantage the new engines could give to Ferrari, with Adrian Newey Red Bull will always have a car that will challenge and will most likely master the aerodynamic changes as well as anyone. So, if you’re Sebastian Vettel, why leave Red Bull to go to Ferrari just when F1 will go through a major change in regulations?

You could argue that Vettel wants to test himself against Alonso, widely regarded to be the most complete driver of his generation, and the only way of doing that is to go up against him in the same team. It could also be argued that Vettel still feels he has something to prove. Since being in Formula One, the German has always either had inferior team-mates (such as Vitantonio Liuzzi and Sebastien Bourdais) or the best car. By going to Ferrari, where he will not be given preferential treatment, will be up against someone equally as good as him and where there is no guarantee he will be driving a dominant car, Vettel has the opportunity to prove himself to be indisputably the best driver in the world.

In many ways it is to be admired that Vettel wants to go up against a team-mate as strong as Fernando Alonso. It is something that Michael Schumacher never did in his first career, and something that Ayrton Senna never even contemplated (infact he vetoed the arrival of Derek Warwick in his Lotus days on the grounds that he was too much of a threat to him). It is a risk that Vettel has shown he is willing to take and one that takes a huge amount of courage.

Seb could easily have waited at Red Bull until the end of 2016 (when Alonso’s Ferrari contract expires and at what will be 35 it is perfectly feasible for the Spaniard will decide to call it a day at that point) to try and get his foot in at Maranello, and no-one would’ve batted an eyelid. As a team that likes a big name driver Vettel would’ve been an obvious choice to succeed Alonso at the team. He could’ve gone to a team like Lotus as a stop gap and waited until Alonso’s seat came available. But he hasn’t, and for that he deserves huge credit.

Vettel’s move could go one of two ways. On the one hand, if he goes up against Alonso and gets the better of him, his reputation will be enhanced and he will go down in the sport’s history as one of the true greats. On the other hand, if Alonso beats him, and beats him soundly, then he runs the risk of having his reputation discredited and his achievements merely put down to having the best car.

Is it the right move? Only time will tell.

Land of the free?

Since voicing my candid appraisal on the entire "PSL" ticket debacle, I've spent the better part of 2012 trying to turn a new leaf, trying to approach the USGP in Austin as an optimist.     I freely admit that this is a trait I'm probably not best known for in certain circles . . . LOL.

The closer truth is that at heart I am a realist who does not suffer fools nor arrogant schemers gladly.     However, it is with caution that I want to initiate this thread on this week's release from CoTA regarding "Prohibited Items."

I am currently seeking clarification on a couple of points regarding their somewhat unexpected, highly unusual, and rather vague proclamation.    Key to my interest is learning the criteria entrants will be judged upon and how this process of exclusion will be implemented.     Given that most attendees will be shuttled to the circuit, thus unable to easily return prohibited items to their vehicles, this raises many questions about how CoTA plans to address the challenges this places upon their ticket buying customers.

From the outset, I think it is important to set a proper perspective on this question.  

This is NOT a policy brought upon CoTA from the FIA, FOM, nor any sanctioning or commercial body remotely associated with F1.     (Many will blame Bernie . . . geez, sometimes I really have to feel for him.)

This is NOT consistent with other F1 Grands Prix staged around the world.  

This is NOT consistent with motor sport events . . . road racing and ovals . . . held in the US.

Therefore, this dilemma, the questions it raises, and the discussion which will certainly follow across the internet is of their own making.

Hopefully this coming week will bring some degree of clarity, qualification, and adjustment from CoTA before the real debate begins . . . but I am certain that debate will be fierce.  

For the sake of those who have worked to bring the USGP to Austin I hope that CoTA will pay attention.   No sensible motor sport enthusiast will pay hard earned money only to put up with such nonsense.  

I will not, and I'm certain that I'm not alone.

Anticipation

We are three weeks out from the lights going down in Melbourne, and I'm cautiously optimistic for the season ahead.    

Clarity is normally elusive this time of year.    Winter speculation and general hearsay usually comes tinged with high degrees of skepticism and cynical commentary.     The political nature of F1 can astonish, and sometimes outrage, yet I cannot personally escape the promise . . . the potential . . . that each new year brings.

I've great anticipation for the 2012 F1 season.     First and foremost, it's fantastic to see Kimi Raikkonen back on the F1 grid.    Whether it means anything or not, six World Champions in competition is impressive.    Winning the F1 WDC is kind of like winning an Oscar . . . it doesn't necessarily identify the the best performance in that role . . . yet it is an accomplishment that requires an enormous degree of mettle.    Kimi maybe regarded in some circles as the weakest of the bunch, but my money says that he will surprise those who question his '07 title. 

There are a couple of other returning drivers that I also look forward to seeing this year:    Nico Hulkenberg and Romain Grosjean.    Hulkenberg is a no brainer.    Grosjean?  I had the chance to watch him attack Spa's Pouhon corner in GP2 in '08.    To say that I was impressed by his aggression would be an understatement.    

Grosjean's first foray with Renault in F1 came in the depths of the team's crashgate saga, which could not have been the ideal climate in which to succeed.    IMHO, his Lotus seat is a well deserved second chance, but it comes with pressure to prove that he belongs in F1, and he will be counted upon to immediately produce results without the luxury of a grace period.

There are a couple of new faces I'm curious about:   Charles Pic and Jean-Eric Vergne.    I know very little about both drivers.    

There are a couple of returning drivers I'm not convinced belong on the grid:   Pedro de la Rosa and Narain Karthikeyan.    I really don't have anything against Pedro . . . I doubt he'd be continually invited back without good reason.     However, in light of limited vacancies and the prime of his career probably past, I can't help but wonder.     IMHO, Karthikeyan simply has not demonstrated unrealized potential.        

 . . . and while I'm dredging the depths, let's consider F1's modern day pay drivers.    Pay drivers have always made up some portion of the F1 grid.     Their rather unfortunate presence is hardly new.    It is my opinion, however, that under the restrictions of an overbearing governing body, a grid limited to 12 teams which must field 2 cars, and the continued dilution of the sport to business pressures, they are now more destructive to the sporting principle of F1 than ever before.      

Finally, I'd be remiss not to mention the drivers who are right now missing from the 2012 grid:     Kubica, Trulli, Barrichello, Heidfeld, Alguersuari, Sutil, Buemi, and Liuzzi.     Certainly we have not seen the last of Robert Kubica.    I wonder who else might find a way back to the grid in the coming months?

I still believe F1 would be a better place with less restricted testing.    We're not increasing competition nor improving the show by limiting testing to the budgets of the smaller teams.    I'd argue that F1 is instead being diluted by this "democratization."     

I also suspect that this restriction further dilutes the sport by tilting open race seats in favor of those with money and connections over those with sheer potential.    

With so few opportunities in which the teams now have to evaluate young up and coming drivers, we may not be seeing the best and brightest enter the sport.     F1 should remain the toughest proving ground . . . the toughest arena to enter, the toughest in which to succeed, and the greatest reward.    Artificial restrictions on testing work against each of these unique distinctions which made Grand Prix the pinnacle of motor racing.

Speaking of restrictions, the role of the race steward has spiraled way out of control.    I can only hope that someone within the FIA will wake up and re-inject common sense into the process.      It has gotten so silly of late that I have often wondered whether the sheer act of fighting for position was against the rules.    Dear FIA:   Get a grip.   Racing incidents happen.    You are truly on the verge of sanitizing the sport completely out of F1.

All griping aside, there's much to look forward to.     So many questions . . . have Ferrari given Alonso a chance?     What of McLaren?     Will Hamilton bounce back or will Button continue to dominate?      Has Mercedes produced a car capable of placing Nico on the top step for the first time?     Schumi for the 92nd time?     Surely one might find a tear in my eye should that occur.    Kimi?    Webber?    Can anyone uncover a weakness in Vettel's armor.    Hopefully someone has produced an answer to Adrian Newey.      

Can't wait . . .

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.