Sidepodcast

All Up in the Air

Whilst Mr C and I have settled for discussing the launches briefly in the podcast, and scoring them out of 10, new guest writer KerbRider has taken a more detailed look at the teams we've seen so far.

2010 has promised to be a great year for F1 since Sebby V took the chequered flag in Abu Dhabi. The off season has now ensured this will be the case.

A lot of people have gotten excited over the game of musical chairs the drivers like to play every few years. Some even more so because a certain driver, I like to call Voldemort, decided he wanted to play again.

Although all these changes have been great to see, and have whet my appetite for what is promising to be a great season, the real excitement for me is launch season.

I love the smell of Duco in the morning!

The reason I love launch season is because I'm a 'details' man. I will study photos of the new cars for hours on end to see their subtleties and nuances, and speculate as to why they did this, or that, and then formulate how I think a particular design philosophy might work.

Different strokes for different folk I guess.

I'll start with the fundamentals of design philosophy, and I'll thank Mr Codling for his insightful article in this months F1 Racing. Cant wait to get the book.

The way I see it, the fundamental concept of designing a quick car is to have the air under the car moving a lot quicker than the air on top. This is basic aeronautics. What an F1 designer must try to achieve is to have four separate airflows to make a car work effectively. Underneath, above, and the two sides of the car.

The idea is to keep these "chunks" of air as independent of each other as possible. So in other words, we don’t want air flowing from the side of the car bleeding into the air flowing over or under the car. As there are four big black squares on a car, the philosophy is to minimise this "bleeding" as much as possible.

It all about compromise.

So on to the cars that have been launched to date.

Ferrari

Ferrari seem to have a simple and sleek design. Quite an attractive car I think, and it hurts me to say that. Love the lighter red colour, and the white wings are bearable for sponsorship purposes. Not a bad deal for Ferrari to get Alonso basically for free, when Santander are obviously footing the bill for him. So can we now class Fernando as a pay driver!

Average height for the nose. Not as high as others and about even with Mercedes. The all important front wing is clearly not as detailed as Mclaren, Red Bull and Sauber, but maybe it doesn’t need to be because the rest of the car deflects the air where needed. Fat, and weighty sidepods are well streamlined, and have the bulk purely for side impact crash testing. A feature most cars have this season.

Where I think Ferrari have excelled is the rear end. Although they haven't chosen to go the "sharkfin" path, there is so much free space at the back for clear airflow over the rear wing. Of course the "sharkfin" is subject to crosswind buffeting that can affect pitch and yaw mid-corner, and more importantly, under braking. What might let them down is the lack of cover over the rear suspension. This may cause turbulent air affecting the air that exits above the diffuser.

McLaren

For one, I am glad McLaren kept their silver and red livery. Its effective, sexy, and unique. Even if the Mercedes has tried to replicate without copying.

McLaren have boldly copied the splitter/divider underneath the nose that Williams had last year but strangely decided to opt against this year.

If we look at a front on view on the MP4-25, it is clear that this device will divide the air to flow more cleanly through the suspension arms and steering column, and swiftly into the sidepods. It will have the effect of forcing more air faster into the sidepods, which explains in a fashion as to why they are so small compared to other teams.

The front wing is, in layman's terms, off its face! Incredibly detailed, and obviously Mclarens' philosophy this year was to not be caught out by last year's mistakes. They learned a lot last year as a design team. Although they seemingly have "borrowed" ideas from RBR and Brawn, they have made them uniquely Mclaren. The Sharkfin is high, and long, and a bit fatter at the bottom. This is to accommodate the exhaust exits that, again unique to Mclaren, exit horizontally, rather than vertically like the rest of the grid. It will be interesting to see what benefit this has. The MP4-25 is vastly different in appearance to anything else this year which means that this year Mclaren will go either one of two ways - that is poor, or win the lot.

Mercedes

My overall view is that I'm largely unimpressed by Mercedes. I was expecting big changes in this year's car. The Mercedes livery is average, and hopefully will be updated next year.

They have gone with a higher nose than the Brawn, and the design remains largely unchanged. Of course as Ross alluded to last year, the nose has the air channelling veins. This seems to be a large talking point, although I think its effectiveness is overrated. I can only assume the concept was born out of a need to direct airflow away from the drivers helmet, which is a rather large obstacle.

The most noticeable change is the air box. Low and broad with a splitter. There is a semi-sharkfin, and I expected tighter packaging at the rear considering they have had a year with the engine and drive train. All this being said, I still believe they will be a top four team.

Sauber

This one gets me excited. BMW obviously did a lot of work before the withdrawal. A great looking front wing that should be successful in diverting airflow around the front wheels and into the rear sculpted body work. A high nose to increase the amount of air flowing underneath the car, and unique sidepods that have the idea of moulding airflow back inward toward the rear wing.

A large and bulky sharkfin as per Mclaren, but inspiringly sculpted sidepods and tight rear packaging. All in the name of rear stability and front end grip. I believe the Sauber should have great traction with the low sitting rear, and as F1 is mainly made up of slow to medium speed corners, this will be a great advantage over the course of 19 races. I think they will be the surprise of the year. Kubica left too early. Which leads me to...

Renault

U-G-L-Y they aint got no alibi, its ugly!! For a team that pulled out as late as they did officially, I think they must have pulled out mentally beforehand as this year's car will be the joke of 2010. My heart sinks for Kubica, it really does. Ugly cars rarely do well in F1, and I don’t think this year will be any exception.

Of course I'm saying this under the impression that this is the car that will actually race.

It looks quite uninspiring, and a bit too bulky at the sides. Like a driver, the car needs to be fit, and trim the fat. It looks shorter than the rest, as does the RBR at first glance. Go Renault engine efficiency!!

The rear wing is left of field, and might suit their own philosophy, but I expect design changes early on in the year, if not before Bahrain. The front wing endplates are also a tad bland, and are the least detailed of the already established teams.

Let's not expect much unfortunately.

Williams

I always hold high hopes for Williams. Shouldn't everyone? Real racers, battlers and sadly of late, the perennial underachievers. This all stems from their brief encounter with a walrus, and they have never recovered fully from that.

I'm a bit befuddled as to why they went with a clean sheet, as last year's car was quite decent, and an evolution of that may have pushed them up the grid. I hope it works for them, but as strange as it sounds, the car seem too clean to be a top performer.

It seems as of late, to find real performance and aero gains, a car needs to look messy. But I guess the 2009 Brawn put that to rest too. Nose is high, which in the past meant high centre of gravity, but with the double diffuser malarkey, this is necessary to maximise air flow underneath the car. I suspect that with this year's cars most performance will be found from the floor, and suspension geometry.

Interesting to note the Williams front wing sits backward from the mounting pillars, whereas the other teams have their mounting pillars attached closer to the front of the front wing main plane. There are some interesting components on the end fences that look successful in dispersing airflow around the tyres.

Toro Rosso

Nothing to see here folks! Keep moving. Seriously, not much change from last years RBR. Not expecting great feats from the driver pairing, although Buemi has some potential. I expect them to be toughing it out with Williams and or Renault at best, Virgin and Lotus at worst.

Virgin Racing

There will be some bad headlines printed about this team this year. My impressions of the car are that it might surprise. Well packaged at the rear, and sidepods of a Mclaren nature. The real sticking point will be suspension geometry and heating the tyres in unison. The front wing looks large, and dual channel end plates look as though they will get the desired result there. Except for one fine point. Sure the CFD would have calculated big downforce levels, but as our friend Mr Saward mentioned in a podcast last year, how will it go in turbulent air? There are no intricate details that suggest it will cope well in traffic, and there is a massive space behind the front wing that has no details to direct air straight toward the floor splitter and onward and downward toward the diffuser.

The car itself looks fantastic. I love the livery, the addition of the Yorkshire rose is just brilliant. I'm Australian, and it means nothing to me, but it’s a beautiful design. For me it harks back to the first Jordan in '91. Clean and unpretentious (even though it is a Branson baby). I think they will score points for sure, but not more than 10 unless they get lucky in the wet.

Red Bull

The one we were all waiting for. The thread for the launch was full of negative comments which surprised me. Sure it looks like last year's car, but they were the quickest last year, so the only thing they had to concentrate on was the rear end because they missed the double diffuser boat. Additionally if RBR can get Total to incorporate into blue, why did Renault insist on that hideous red?

Firstly the front wing. Equal in development man hours of the Mclaren I would imagine, and running in turbulence was an issue for them last year until they introduced the stepped top wing. The nose is almost round once we get past the yellow tip, and the airflow channels on top are more pronounced and sharper at the front than other teams who have copied the idea. The rear end is even more tightly packaged than last year and it looks low thanks to the pull rod suspension geometry. This will assist with traction out of the slower corners, as last year, the RBR was an oversteer car compared to the understeering Brawn.

The sharkfin has now been filled in underneath the rear wing, and comprises the rear wing support post. It should be quick, but will it be the quickest?

Force India

With the Mclaren association, I am expecting big things from this team this year. The front wing is nicely detailed and there is plenty of space under the high nose to get lots of under the car and into that diffuser. High chunky sidepods like the Ferrari, and the rear packaging looks too high. First impressions are that it has a higher centre of gravity than the others as the exhaust exits sit high in the bodywork.

No change in livery, which is fine by me. Its effective, if not attractive. I'm also expecting over the course of the season for Liuzzi to beat Sutil resoundingly.

It really is all up in the air this year, and anyone who thinks they know who will win at this stage is kidding themselves. There will be some good guesses only in prediction land, and I for one am predicting a Lewis WDC and a Red Bull WCC.

Finite Element Analysis in Formula 1

FEA in Formula 1 - stress and load mesh modelling at its very best.

The Open University offers distance learning for undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications. To support courses, a number of educational resources are made available for free via Apple's iTunesU mobile learning solution. This month an engineering and technology podcast relating to Formula 1 has become available.

The course in question is the catchily titled T884 - An Introduction to Finite Element Analysis which relates to a computational modelling and analysis technique known as Finite Element Analysis, or FEA to its friends. FEA is used by F1 teams in a number of design areas in order to optimise the performance of various elements of a racing car, thus the OU descended on the Red Bull Racing factory in Milton Keynes to help explain how these techniques enable them to reach the front of the grid.

Whilst this iTunesU content is primarily offered as supplemental learning material, the course does amount to 17 videos. Included is insight from Lewis Butler who's the senior structural analyst for the team and who offers a detailed look into how a part such as a wheel hub might first be modelled virtually, in order to predict weaknesses or suggest improvements in the design before manufacture.

Much of the footage appears to have been filmed in the teams factory, and a real chassis is used to demonstrate the finer points of the talk, although the sight of Michelin tyres belies its true age. The short video's are provided in both low and high resolution format, and are backed up by PDF transcripts.

I will admit to being considerably out of my depth 10 minutes into the course, but you will get some fantastic insight into what goes on behind the scenes of a Formula 1 team, and you likely won't be so quick to judge a team the next time a loose wheel comes flying from its hub in Hungary.

Computer Aided Design at this level is an incredibly complex subject to cover, but the series is well produced and presented. That a Formula 1 team can see the benefit in putting effort into such a programme speaks volumes and Red Bull should be congratulated for making a largely inaccessible topic more available.

If you haven't taken a look at iTunesU before, it's a recommended destination, and there's no place better to start than the free Finite Element Analysis course from Red Bull and the Open University.

Farcical Front Flap Adjustments

For the best part of the season we have bemoaned the look that is a 2009 spec Formula One car. Heck, we were complaining about the fugly high rear wing and boxy lines from the moment the first Williams hit the test track a year ago. Things didn't improve when the likes of BMW followed suit.

After witnessing a whole season of modified bodywork in action, I'm still not sold on the revised profile. I'd prefer it if we could just pretend the changes didn't happen and roll back to something far sexier and dare I say, more "normal". It would of course have helped if the changes, introduced to solve the distinct lack of overtaking in modern F1, had achieved anything of note.

Flap Your Wings

My favourite regulation debut, has to be the concept of adjustable bodywork. Enjoy this prime example of such a device at work.

In case you missed the vital moment, you're watching Barrichello's front wing enter the main straight in Brazil, and six seconds into the video you might just catch he lowers his front flap, before raising it again four seconds later. Don't blink and don't be surprised if you can't see it, only Steven and Iaian spotted it at the time. I'm also pretty sure this was the only time anybody in the live comments saw a front flap move the whole season.

Once.

We watched 85 sessions this season, and that clip is about the sole difference it made to our enjoyment of F1.

It Gets Pushed Down, It Gets Pulled Up Again

Introduced with the aim of allowing cars to run closer together, to facilitate overtaking, adjustable bodywork could and should be considered a dismal failure. Did it improve the racing? Not in the slightest. Was it a waste of money and effort? Almost certainly.

Formula 1 went cost-cutting crazy this yet, yet managed to spend time and investment creating one of the most pointless developments the sport has seen in a long while. The majority of casual fans likely don't know about it, and even the drivers, who should feel the most benefit, don't appear that interested. In an interview with Maurice Hamilton, Alonso was brutally honest in his conclusions.

I never touch it! So far, nine races, I never use it. It's not useful at all. KERS, the aerodynamics, they are two new regulations that didn't work this year.

A rip roaring success all round then.

The salient points from the 2009 technical regulations define movable flap as:

3.18 Driver adjustable bodywork
...
is allowed to change incidence while the vehicle is in motion within a maximum range of 6°, provided any such change maintains compliance with all of the bodywork dimensional regulations.
...
a maximum of two adjustments may be made within any single lap of a circuit.

Therein lies the likely culprit for problems with this devices implementation. As seen in the above video, six degrees is a tiny amount of adjustment, how could it ever hope to make a significant difference to passing? Similarly, why mandate such a restriction as two adjustments per lap? In the above video Rubens was seen making and down and then an up selection. He used it at the first corner, and again at the last corner, during the rest of the lap it remained static. Additionally, there was no way of communicating the position of said flap to TV viewers or those in the grandstands.

What a complete waste of time.

All of a Flap

At best the motor mechanism enabling movement added some much needed weight to the front of the car, but this in turn raised further questions about the sense in situating tiny moving parts directly in front of a driver. Is that a wise thing to do given the likelihood of a head-on accident occurring at some point.

As Christine pointed out back in August, the Overtaking Working Group haven't been forthcoming with an apology for mistakes made in defining this years regulations. Taken at face value, and lacking any form of defence from teams, drivers, fans or the FIA, the adjustable front flap must be up there with the most pointless aerodynamic devices of all time.

Changes might be considered, improvements made, and in future we may think about the idea differently, however article 3.18 is still present and unchanged in the most up-to-date technical regulations available on the FIA website.

For me, adjustable bodywork was a waste of time, space and money this year. What do you think?

As Close as You'll Get to an Apology

We've been saying for a good proportion of the season that the new regulations aren't working. We are not alone in thinking this, and thankfully, the team's are starting to admit that things haven't gone as planned in 2009. We're still waiting for the Overtaking Working Group to stand up and take the criticism on board, but still, this is progress. Stefano Domenicali outright admits, well, in a roundabout way at least, that things aren't as anticipated:

The main aim for the changes was to reduce the disturbance behind a car and thus help increase passing. Stefano said it best:

I think the 2009 regulations were changed in order to have better overtaking, that was the main principle. I have to say that if you look at the races, that objective was not really achieved so far.

Mario Theissen spoke about this towards the end of May, unhappy with the way the regulations had turned out:

The aero restrictions we currently have, however, are not as tight as we thought they would be, so I think we could do more.

He did try and clarify that at least the field had closed up considerably, that must be something. However, as we've noted for the past few races, that makes qualifying the best part of the weekend. On a Saturday, the small gap between the cars can mean the difference between pole and dropping out in Q1. On a Sunday, the cars are still following each other round, they are just closer together.

Sam Michael at Williams also adds to this argument, with his thoughts on the new regulations helping their car be so much more consistant this year:

There is some trend. We don't have the same sorts of troughs that we used to have, but at Monaco and Melbourne we were more competitive so we've still got a spike on street circuits.

If every team is experiencing something of the same consistency, it's going to make for more straight-forward racing, isn't it? The fun starts when you find a Hungary style setup - an out of place Renault, a new and improved McLaren, an eager Ferrari. It also leads back to the same old argument of no in-season testing. Fewer developments can take place, less innovation, a similar playing field throughout the year.

Now that the teams are sitting up and taking note of the failure on the part of the overtaking group, will anything be done? Even Bridgestone took action when they realised the double step in tyre compounds wasn't working. They baulked at admitting they were wrong, I grant you, but they studied the data and tweaked the rules. Will the OWG get back together and sort out the mess they've made - correction, the fugly mess they've made - or will they, as usually happens, find themselves replaced by another initiative that likely isn't going to work?

What About Those Who Really Matter?

^{Will Rob be safe out there?}

From what we know about KERS, as long as everything is going to plan, it's all fine. That's true for a lot of things, I suppose, but when it comes to storing electricity, it becomes slightly worrying. Many of the questions we've been asking, quite rightly, concentrate on how safe the drivers will be, as they navigate the circuit on a race weekend. When it all goes wrong, and the car breaks down, then a lot more people get involved. How safe are they?

Picture the scene: A race weekend. The cars leave the pits and meander to the grid. Presumably there is no KERS involved here, or the scrum of people who appear during the grid walk will all have to wear protective clothing. Bernie wouldn't want to entertain the King of somewhere with rubber boots on, would he?

The grid clears, and they head off on the formation lap. But Massa has stalled. What happens then? Is he safe to be pushed?

The lights go out, the race begins. Rob is sitting on the pit wall, giving Massa directions over the pit-to-car radio. However, poor Felipe isn't having a good day and the car pulls to a stop. He has to jump out (possibly literally). When the marshals come over to move the car, are they allowed to touch it? We've seen mechanics with the big protective gloves on, perhaps the marshals will get these as well. How does it work when it comes to getting the car on the crane and returning it to the pit lane? Will the marshals in Singapore be able to cope with these new demands?

Perhaps the situation turns out slightly different, and Massa has managed to get the Ferrari back to the pits. He heads down the pit lane and stops in the box. It's going to take the mechanics a few minutes to get the car going again, and Massa has to wait. Presumably, Rob won't be wearing the big overalls and gloves, so is there no possibility of him leaving the pit wall and approaching the car, or dashing into the garage?

Standing nearby, Ted Kravitz is reporting for the BBC. He has his fireproof overalls on, but presumably can't hold a microphone with the big gloves on. Chances are, he's not going anywhere near the car, but things happen. How much danger is he in? And the camera operators, who clearly have to get much nearer to the cars than the pit reporter does?

Since it’s introduction, we’ve had a fire at the Red Bull factory, a BMW mechanic has been injured, and terrifying electricity warnings have appeared up and down the pit lane. It may all be as safe as houses, but no one is talking about it and all we’ve got to go on are the things we can spy from testing photographs. The concern about KERS won’t abate until we get some answers to our questions. It’s all very well the powers that be telling us everything will be fine, but if they were even slightly more transparent about the safety concerns, then we’d stop asking.

Back when Coulthard was discussing testing a car with KERS on, he laughed and said he was ordering a full-body suit made out of rubber. I thought he was joking.

Cosworth, Xtrac and Ricardo

This morning Max Mosley sent a letter to F1 teams detailing the FIA's plans for standardised parts in 2010. The communication contained lots of telling information as to what direction the sport will be taking in the future. Given that the FIA finally managed to show us some transparency in this area, it's worth digging into what was specified.

With Great Power

The key point noted in the letter is that a decision has been made regarding the tendering process to provide a supply of engine and transmission systems for the period 2010 to 2012. Cosworth will provide what Max is calling "a current Formula One engine", which leads us to assume that it's the already homologated V8 last seen running in the back of a Williams at the end of 2006.

Despite the sports supposed engine 'freeze', the Cosworth must've fallen behind the development curve of current powerplants. In fact at the end of '06, they had already started to lose ground on track so presumably these units will now offer comparably less performance. Will the FIA allow upgrades, insist others kerb their capabilities, or leave things as they are?

Cosworth have plenty of history in Formula One, and while it's good to see the name return, the final products will sadly be supplied "unbadged". Teams also have the option to build their own version, although quite who this will appeal to I can't imagine? Alternately teams may continue to use their own pre-existing engines for the next four years.

Selection Process

On the gear box side of the equation, two names were mentioned - Xtrac and Ricardo. We know very little about these suppliers but Max notes that the product will be "state-of-the-art and a joint effort".

While the engine is optional for Formula 1 entrants, the transmission will be mandatory for all from 2010. What's not entirely clear is how many races these boxes will have to last for, but hey, it'll be the same for everybody.

Xtrac are based near Newbury and currently supply the gearbox for all A1GP cars. That fact alone ought to raise a bunch of FIA / Ferrari conspiracy theories.

The Xtrac website states they already carry out gearbox work for a number of F1 teams, one of which is known to be Williams. The company have appeared on our radar recently, as they are also developing a KERS solution, and while Max doesn't specifically refer to it we're assuming that standardised KERS is included in the proposal.

Ricardo are located in West Sussex and to all intents and purposes look like they do similar things to Xtrac. In fact given the cross over of capabilities between the companies, it's hard to say who'll be responsible for each part of the design and build. Past history suggests the two companies are often competitors.

Also not clear is where this leaves Torotrak, a company that partnered with Xtrac last year to develop KERS solutions.

There are interesting times ahead for Formula 1. Although none of us were expecting Honda to up sticks in the manner that they have, it's pretty clear the FIA have been anticipating it for some time. Technical details are pretty thin on the ground at the moment, and no doubt the likes of Racecar Engineering will have more at some point.

In the meantime, if you have any thoughts on the standardisation of F1 parts - be they engines, gearboxes, KERS or anything else, please let us know in the comments.

We Only Get Judged by What We Do

Sometimes I feel sorry for the Bridgestone Corporation. Ever since the FIA opened the tender process to be Formula 1's single tyre supplier, their marketing department have been struggling to keep the black and round things at the forefront of our minds, and in most cases they've failed.

The manufacturer did manage to convince the powers that be to mandate two types of rubber be used per race. However that's served only to confuse race fans and quash any action during the final third of a GP. They only get press coverage when something goes wrong and teams are constantly referring to one their products as the "less favourable" or "inferior" compound.

Keeping all this in mind, my charitable side could almost forgive them for coming up with this loony marketing pitch:

Bridgestone may have created the ugliest Formula 1 tyre of all time.

Supposedly these things have been cooked up to promote the idea of reducing the impact of motoring on the environment, but let's not indulge anyone in such altruistic fantasies for one second. It's Bridgestone's home race and they are desperate to do anything that'll generate them a headline or two.

The tyres pictured above are to be used by F1 teams during this coming weekend. I've no idea how anyone is going to tell the one with the white and green stripes from the other one with just the green stripes, but I am now resolutely hoping for a very wet weekend - lest we have to set eyes on the damn things again.

Of course if you genuinely want green rubber, stuff that actually makes a difference and looks after the environment, you'll be wanting a some Michelin Energy Saver tyres. Those things have been proven to last longer and offer better fuel economy to the likes of you and I. Now that is something worth shouting about.

Am I being harsh or missing the point, is this a good initiative for the sport to be involved with? And has there ever been an uglier tyre in F1?

We're Not the Only Ones

In David Coulthard's latest column for ITV, he talks about yet another missed opportunity in Germany, the comparisons between Toro Rosso and Red Bull, and the future of KERS. But my favourite piece in his column, is just a couple of small paragraphs.

As an aside, I notice that the rear wing fell off the Toyota at Silverstone and it was a right-rear suspension failure that caused Glock’s crash at Hockenheim.

I didn’t hear of any investigation into the structural integrity of the Toyota – but presumably that will happen because when we had a suspension breakage in Malaysia we came under the spotlight of the FIA in a way that was publicly uncomfortable for the team.

Now, my first reaction to this was: "That's because the Toyota didn't smash into a billion tiny pieces!" Thinking about it, however, Coulthard does have a point. If there is a structural problem with the Toyota that has caused these last two failures, then it probably should be looked at.

So, why isn't it? I can only conclude two possible reasons. Either the problems aren't as Coulthard suspects, and they aren't related to any vital components within the car. Or, it's because the crashes were not as visible as the Red Bull failures. Of course, we all saw Glock crash and leave the car wincing, and there was plenty of debris on the track, but the car generally looked to be sound. When we watched Coulthard bounce across the kerb in Malaysia, there was carbon fibre flying off all over the shop. Given the information I have, I would investigate the Red Bull over the Toyota any day.

But, perhaps I am wrong. Are we seeing yet more inconsistency from the FIA again, or is this just Coulthard filling his column inches?

Where Tyres Fear to Tread

Of all the elements that go into a successful race campaign – driver, pit crew, engineers, aerodynamics, engines – the tyres are way up there with the most important. If your tyres aren’t working, you’re not going to get anywhere. We’ve seen drivers struggle because they stayed out too long, or because they’re suffering some serious graining, or even chunking.

However, if the car is hooked up and the tyres are working well, you can speed to an easy victory. As one of the most important components of a race strategy, it therefore follows that they are key to spicing up the action. Or so Bridgestone think.

At the moment, Bridgestone bring two compounds to each race, adjacent selections from the super-soft, soft, medium and hard tyres. This is only true of dry tyres, by the way, and that's all we're discussing here. A wet race demands enough strategy issues of it's own that we won't get into here.

Selecting two neighbouring compounds means the difference isn't all that startling, and although we can just about tell the difference between a soft, single lap tyre compared to a hard, go longer tyre, it's nothing to write home about. It doesn't make the drivers rethink their strategies too much, in fact we've only had one major decision based on tyres this year (Hamilton in Turkey).

Now, Bridgestone are suggesting that for 2009, they might try selecting compounds two steps apart. So, for instance, they might turn up to Monaco with super-softs and medium tyres. This apparently, like I said earlier, is the key to spicing up the action.

Let’s all issue a collective groan right now.

There are four different parts to this story.

The End of the Last Great Tyre War

Since Michelin departed from the sport, there has been less mention of the word Bridgestone. Previously, it was always Bridgestone this, and Michelin that, and it was fascinating to watch the pair go at it on a race weekend. Now, as a single supplier series, how often does the name actually get mentioned? We talk about tyres incessantly, but does it really matter who makes them? Not much. Ever desperate to get a mention, perhaps this is their way of reaching the headlines.

Slicks

Next year, teams will be using slick tyres. For me, this is enough of a change to need at least a year before making any more adjustments. I’ve never seen slicks in action, and I want to know what all the fuss is about. If you go around changing other bits and pieces as well, it means I can’t get the whole story. The first thing they teach you in science class? Change one thing at a time.

Tyre warmers

Bridgestone lost the argument regarding the tyre warmers ban, and they’re probably still smarting from that. Changing compounds is the only thing they really have control over, and it’s no wonder they want to exert that power.

Strategy

Bridgestone themselves admit that if they take it too far, then all strategy variances will disappear. If the difference between compounds is too wide, there will be one clear way to win the race, and all the teams will choose that path. You’ll see pit stops at the same time, and similar lap times, and it would actually have an adverse effect on the action. There’s a fine line, which must be difficult for Bridgestone to balance on, and adjusting this is not going to be easy.

It's Just an Idea

The last one is the most important, because the proposed claims are most likely going to end up one of those things that is tried out, doesn’t work, and is then retracted. I can only hope that it remains a proposal. Of all the things wrong with F1 right now, are tyres really a priority?

SECU Very Much

Just over a week ago Christine pointed out on F1 Minute that revised safety car procedures would be tested out during the French Grand Prix weekend. Details were sketchy at the time, although she did say that it would likely involve the use of the standard ECU.

A regulations revision is needed in order to work around a side effect of rules introduced at the beginning of 2007, which, in an effort to remove the incentive for speeding back to the pits, sees the pitlane closed to anyone wishing to take on fuel. The problem of course is cars already running on fumes have no choice but to stop, and this has already ruined races for Kovalainen and Heidfeld this year.

Practice Makes Perfect

During this week's Renault podcast, the team's sporting manager Steve Nielsen divulged a few more details about what might happen next weekend in Magny Cours.

Supposedly the original timetable for the trial saw a test-run planned at Monaco, but that was shelved in order to give teams more time to look at the ECU changes during this week's test in Barcelona. If all goes well, the suggestion is that in the event of an accident, a warning light will appear on driver's steering wheels immediately after the safety car is deployed. They then have a maximum of five seconds to acknowledge the warning and after that they must reduce their laptimes in accordance with a readout that's also displayed on their wheel.

Steve mentioned that two trials will take place in France. The first during the in-lap at the end of Friday Practice 2 and the second time during the in-lap of Saturday Practice 3. The target time drivers must remain within will be calculated during the first practice on Friday.

Nielsen Ratings

No penalties will be issued to drivers failing to keep to the specified time, but what isn't yet clear is what happens if no cars happen to be out on the track, if for example it's raining. Presumably the decision to split the trial over two days goes some way to mitigate the chances of that happening.

It's also worth adding that this information hasn't been confirmed as yet and Nielsen was quick to point out that plans may have changed, but that was as much as he knew at the time the podcast was recorded.

What's clear though is that nobody's going to rush headlong into this. Steve said he felt that if the trial was successful, the appropriate time to introduce the rules would be the beginning of next season, and as unanimity between the teams is required for the system to be implemented, we should expect the current regulations to remain as-is in the short term.

Confusions

If you ask me, the proposals sound more than a little convoluted. Not only for the drivers and the teams, but also for anyone trying to follow the action at the track or at home. How in the world we're supposed to figure out who has acknowledged the warning or who's not managed to keep within the limits is anyone's guess.

One also wonders, if everyone is spending so much time looking down at their steering wheel rather than looking where they're going, isn't that more dangerous than speeding through the scene of an accident in any case?