Could 2006 be the most controversial season ever?

19 September 2006 - 16:22

It would take something big to beat 1994 with the multiple penalties given to Schumacher, including the infamous black flag at the British Grand Prix, seemingly manufactured to bring the title race closer together, only for Schumacher to apparently deliberately take out Damon Hill in the final round at Adelaide to win the Driver's Championship. Still, this season could go down in the history books as a season of controversy at exactly the same time as the FIA introduced a supposedly independent permanent steward in order to reduce the complaints of inconsistency that have dogged the race stewards previously.

What went wrong? First of all, I don't think the stewards have been consistent. They didn't release any documentation explaining what previous decision they feel the penalty given to Alonso in Italy is consistent with. And probably for a good reason, in that there isn't a precedent for it. As I said at the time, not only was Massa too far back to have been blocked by Alonso (he might just have been close enough to pick up a tow though!), but also, even if Massa was slightly impeded, is that wrong when the driver ahead is just coming up to start their own flying lap and thus cannot be expected to get out of the way like a backmarker? I believe Ferrari complained to the stewards speculatively about Alonso and probably didn't think themselves they had much chance of getting a penalty handed out. But being in Italy the two non-permanent stewards are Italians and with this race being so important to Ferrari, they may have influenced the permanent steward somewhat. I'm not suggesting it's a fix as Flavio Briatore and Pay Symonds have, but it's rather difficult to swallow. You expect football referees to get decisions wrong sometimes because they have no video replays, no telemetry and no time to hear all the arguments from the parties involved. The stewards, making a decision between sessions rather than during a race, did have all the evidence and the chance to interview all parties. And yet they come up with something unfathomable.

Still, it's impossible to say the stewards are biased towards Ferrari after the penalty they handed to Michael Schumacher in Monte Carlo. We can however say that they are at best inconsistent and at worst, trying to manipulate the championship to bring things closer together.

I note that after the FIA presedent Max Mosley defended the judgement of the stewards by saying that they had only applied the rules, the FIA have now changed the rules so that only 'deliberate' blocking during qualifying will be punished. While I think that the rule should have always said that, what the hell do the FIA think they are doing changing the rules mid-season? You can hardly appoint a perment steward, saying that you want to see consistent application of the rules, and then change the rules whenever something controversial happens. If the stewards are only applying the rules the cannot be consistent if the rules aren't!

Add this to the Mass Damper saga where the FIA were seen to change their position on the legallity of the device on a whim with very little justification given, this season is starting to look a bit of a mess from a regulatory point of view. There are now three races left in the 2006 season and with only two points between the title contenders there is plenty of scope for incidents of the non-racing variety to influence the outcome of the championship. With any luck the title will be decided simply by which of the two drivers finishes fastest in those three races - one more penalty for either will make the result a farce.

/ No comments / § ¶

Turkish Grand Prix organisers let off

19 September 2006 - 15:09

Today came the news that the organisers of the Turkish Grand Prix have been fined a record $5M for breaking the sports regulations in using the podium ceremony to make a political point. I have to admit that it passed me by at the time, but the winner's trophy was awarded to Filipe Massa by Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat, the controversy being that he was introduced as the president of the state of Turkish Northern Cyprus. With Cyprus having been divided since Turkey invaded it in 1974 and with neither the UN or any other country recognising Northern Cyprus as a state, this is a very delicate matter. You can read more about Cyprus in this BBC article. The Greek Cypriots were quick to put in a complaint to the FIA who then hauled the organisers before the World Motorsport Council.

Turkey risked losing its place on the Formula 1 callendar as a result of the controversial podium ceremony - the FIA represents the national motorsport bodies of 125 and must therefore insist on political neutrality at all events. What is interesting to me is that as serious a matter as this was, almost everyone asked by the media to comment on the possibility of sanctions thought that the Turkish Grand Prix would be reprieved. You can see the weasel words of many a team owner in this Autosport.com article.

It's easy to see why: they are only two years into a long deal to host the race; a huge amount of money was invested in building the Istanbul circuit and the circuit itself is rapidly becoming the second favourite (after Spa) with both drivers and television viewers. Even so, to say that the organisers can get away with any antics they like just because their Grand Prix is important commercially and popular with fans would set a dangerous prescedent. As such, I think the $5M fine, despite its record status, is the least sanction the FIA could apply.

/ No comments / § ¶

The Pitbull gets back into F1

18 September 2006 - 17:03

Former Jordan, Renault and Toyota technical director, Mike Gascoyne, has come full circle and done a deal to rejoin his old team, now known as Spyker MF1.

I'm surprised by this personally. When he was effectively sacked by Toyota way back in April, many including me, doubted Gascoyne would back in Formula 1. He earned enough in his time at Toyota not to have to work again, or at least be able to pursue a less stressful career of his choice. With Toyota having paid dearly for his services and not seemingly gained much, it seemed unlikely that another manufacturer team would hire him and an independent wouldn't be able to afford a high enough wage to bring him in. Clearly though F1 and the challenge of getting the best out of the resources available must have been too much. When his 'gardening leave' from Toyota is over in November Gascoyne will join Spyker MF1, his old team Jordan, once more. He admits that he has no chance to make a winning car there, but that there is still the challenge of getting the best out of the modest resources the team have.

/ No comments / § ¶

Death to the CDG Wing (the future of overtaking in F1)

18 September 2006 - 16:35

It seems that the teams who all paid lip-service to the FIA's CDG wing concept when it was unveiled last year have finally told the FIA what to do with it. To its credit, the FIA has listened and agreed to postpone introduction of aerodynamic changes, due to come into force in 2008, until it has examined alternative proposals that the teams have apparently been working on.

I've blogged before about the insanity of the CDG wing. To me it's always looked like the tail wagging the dog in that the problem with overtaking in modern F1 is not caused by the wake of the leading car, but the sensitivity of the following car to that same wake. That sensitivity comes from two factors: One is that in terms of overall downforce, too much now comes from the wings, winglets, flipups and other surfaces on the top of the car as a result of the FIA's year on year restrictions on diffuser size and wing element counts. Secondly, there is specifically a big problem with cars understeering dispropotionately when they get close to another car in a bend. There has always been understeer induced by the wake of a car ahead, but since the front wing has been raised mostly out of ground-effect, it has become almost impossible to pass in the bends.

The CDG wing attempted to improve overtaking by splitting the rear wing in two laterally. The centre of the car would have only neutral or downwards sloping bodywork which would in itself generate lift - not a good thing in a racing car that's supposed to travel at 200mph! It would however be augmented by two wings, one behind each of the rear wheels. These would generate some downforce (although how much would be achieveable in the wake of the wheels is questionable) and the vortices of the inner ends of the two wings would combine to generate a downwash in the centre of the car. The idea is apparently that a following car can get in that central downwash zone and improve it's downforce.

/ three comments / § ¶

The developing engine situation

17 September 2006 - 17:00

Firstly an update on the FIA-mandated of homologated engines: Following the game of brinkmanship between the FIA and the GPMA member teams earlier this year, all the teams agreed to enter Formula 1 from 2008 through 2011. Because the published regulations for those three seasons demanded the use of homologated engines, the reference engine having been deposited with the FIA before the British Grand Prix 2006, it is believed that all teams have already deposited engines with the FIA. Those are the engine specifications that would have been used if no further agreement had been reached.

Fortunately the engine manufacturers have seen sense. They had tried to get the FIA to allow a certain amount of development each season and since this obviously goes against the whole point of homologation (to pin costs and power levels), the FIA insisted that the manufacturers agreed to supply engines to the independent teams at a reasonable cost (that being about €5M per season - what the FIA estimate a supply of homologated engines will cost). There have been discussions over "fighting funds" and the supply of 'affordable' engines to independent teams before and they came to nothing with the indies having to sell up and the manufacturers pushing engine costs ever higher. Paul Stoddart was particularly vocal on just this subject when the manufacturers apparently whelched on promises he claimed they'd made. The only positive development since was when the FIA insisted on two-race engines, allowing Toyota to supply Jordan for the past two seasons. Now I'm not a fan of two-race engines, but I wonder what old specification Cosworth engine Jordan would have had to run, Minardi style, if that hadn't happened.

When time ran out on the GPMA member's prevarication over the supply of affordable engines, the FIA said enough is enough, engine homologation will happen from 2008. Knowing that a season and a half of expensive development before reverting to mid-2006-spec engines was madness, they have now agreed to bring the homologation period forward. It will now last at least two seasons, but will now run from the Chinese Grand Prix 2006 through to the end of the 2008 season or possibly longer. The interesting thing is that engines must have completed two race distances before they are lodged with the FIA. This is presumably to prevent manufacturers designing new components right upto the deadline and then asking for special dispensation to modify their engines during the homologation period when they prove unreliable.

/ No comments / § ¶

If I were prone to conspiracy theories...

09 September 2006 - 17:22

...then the actions of the stewards at the Italian Grand Prix today would be the final evidence I needed to show that the 2006 Formula One World Drivers Championship was being manipulated to manufacture either a close finish or a win for "FIA friend" Ferrari and the soon-to-be-retired Michael Schumacher.

Since I've been away some time I haven't yet commented on the subject of the summer: Tuned Mass Dampers and their banning by the FIA. I believe the FIA are totally wrong about TMD's being "moveable aerodynamic devices", partly because the purpose is to improve mechanical grip - any secondary aero benefit that can be ontained by allowing the car to run lower is minor and such improvements come from many other technological developments which aren't similarly seen as needing to be banned. Also I believe the regulations are flawed in their definition of devices having "aerodynamic influence". They should only include bodywork that is licked by the airstream. For something that completely enclosed within the bodywork to be considered an "aerodynamic device" is just ludicrous. The FIA were able to test their ban in front of the Court of Appeals and it stood up to the letter of the regulations as they stand. However, the appeal by the FIA and the way in which it was conducted (with Renault having presented extensive documentation and research to justify their position and the FIA just repeating it's previous judgement on a couple of pages) smacks of the FIA simply wanting the device banned and the "moveable aerodynamic devices" rule was just a simple way to achieve that without having to introduce a new rule mid-season.

It's why the FIA wanted the TMD banned mid-season that is more curious. Especially as they knew about them since last year. The reasonable person in me wants to accept that they had concerns about development getting out of hand with larger dampers appearing all over the cars forming a potential safety hazard, but with only 6 races left until the end of the season at the time, it would have been more reasonable to allow TMDs until the end of the season, then bring in a specific rule to ban them. To the conspiracy theorist it looks very much like the FIA wanted to reign in the Renault team who where making 2006 into the biggest cakewalk since Ferrari's in 2004 (only 3 races were won by other teams). 

Conspiracy theories would have been further fueled when Alonso was handed a 2 second qualifying time penalty in Hungary, although any reasonable person would agree that he did drive dangerously in practice and deserved a penalty (although the 2 seconds seems a bit harsh). Most of those conspiracy theorists shut up when Alonso's title rival, Michael Schumacher was handed his own 2 second qualifying time penalty due to passing under red in the final practice session. Some claim that Alonso tricked Schumacher into passing him when Jenson Button's engine blew up, but he clearly had plenty of time to slow down. Having handed Alonso a penalty (part of which was for passing under a yellow flag), they had no option but to penalise Schumacher similarly or risk accusations of bias.

The apparently independent stewards have handed out several penalties for blocking during qualifying this year. These vary in severity depending on whether the block was deemed deliberate or not and whether it was dangerous (or just really blatant like Schumacher's stopping on track in Monaco). Even if a driver impedes a flying lap of another driver by accident, they can still be penalised on the basis that they (or their team) should have been paying more attention to what's going behind them.

Following qualifying for the Italian Grand Prix, the stewards penalised Fernando Alonso by removing his three fastest qualifying laps (in the final session) for impeding Ferrrari driver, Filipe Massa's final flying lap. That's got to look mighty suspicious when Alonso is being chased down by Massa's teammate, Michael Schumacher, in the 2006 championship. It would be suspicious if Alonso had actually impeded Massa, but I was watching the supposed incident live on TV. Massa caught Fernando at the end of the lap and they never actually got closer than 4 or 5 car lengths. It actually looked like Massa backed off voluntarily and he certainly made no attempt to pass Alonso. The point is, at the same time Alonso was coming up to start a flying lap and couldn't go offline or massively slow to help out Massa without compromising his own final flying lap. If this indicent had occured earlier in the lap or if Alonso was on a slowing down lap or something, that would be an easier call to make, but should a driver have to go out of their way to help another on a flying lap even if it compromises their own lap?

That's the key question for me. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and given the permanent steward's heavy sanctions against Schumacher at Monte Carlo, it's hard to call him biased towards Ferrari. However, I think they have got a bee in their bonet about blocking this season. Some blocks have been blatant and should rightly be penalised, but this one was unavoidable and they have overstepped the mark by penalising Alonso for it. It was just bad luck that Massa came upon Alonso when he did. In the old days of qualifying drivers would get flying laps wrecked by traffic all the time and it wasn't considered necessary to penalise drivers then. That's partly because the 'qualifying on race fuel' rule means only your final flying lap really has a chance to get pole, magnifying the effect of any blown attempt. That's something that could be fixed for next season, but I don't see any evidence of that happening. Though at the rate we are going, if drivers are going to complain to the stewards about being blocked every single time a lap is even slightly ruined by another driver, we might as well go back to single-lap qualifying.

/ No comments / § ¶

Could 2006 be the most controversial season ever?

19 September 2006 - 16:22

It would take something big to beat 1994 with the multiple penalties given to Schumacher, including the infamous black flag at the British Grand Prix, seemingly manufactured to bring the title race closer together, only for Schumacher to apparently deliberately take out Damon Hill in the final round at Adelaide to win the Driver's Championship. Still, this season could go down in the history books as a season of controversy at exactly the same time as the FIA introduced a supposedly independent permanent steward in order to reduce the complaints of inconsistency that have dogged the race stewards previously.

What went wrong? First of all, I don't think the stewards have been consistent. They didn't release any documentation explaining what previous decision they feel the penalty given to Alonso in Italy is consistent with. And probably for a good reason, in that there isn't a precedent for it. As I said at the time, not only was Massa too far back to have been blocked by Alonso (he might just have been close enough to pick up a tow though!), but also, even if Massa was slightly impeded, is that wrong when the driver ahead is just coming up to start their own flying lap and thus cannot be expected to get out of the way like a backmarker? I believe Ferrari complained to the stewards speculatively about Alonso and probably didn't think themselves they had much chance of getting a penalty handed out. But being in Italy the two non-permanent stewards are Italians and with this race being so important to Ferrari, they may have influenced the permanent steward somewhat. I'm not suggesting it's a fix as Flavio Briatore and Pay Symonds have, but it's rather difficult to swallow. You expect football referees to get decisions wrong sometimes because they have no video replays, no telemetry and no time to hear all the arguments from the parties involved. The stewards, making a decision between sessions rather than during a race, did have all the evidence and the chance to interview all parties. And yet they come up with something unfathomable.

Still, it's impossible to say the stewards are biased towards Ferrari after the penalty they handed to Michael Schumacher in Monte Carlo. We can however say that they are at best inconsistent and at worst, trying to manipulate the championship to bring things closer together.

I note that after the FIA presedent Max Mosley defended the judgement of the stewards by saying that they had only applied the rules, the FIA have now changed the rules so that only 'deliberate' blocking during qualifying will be punished. While I think that the rule should have always said that, what the hell do the FIA think they are doing changing the rules mid-season? You can hardly appoint a perment steward, saying that you want to see consistent application of the rules, and then change the rules whenever something controversial happens. If the stewards are only applying the rules the cannot be consistent if the rules aren't!

Add this to the Mass Damper saga where the FIA were seen to change their position on the legallity of the device on a whim with very little justification given, this season is starting to look a bit of a mess from a regulatory point of view. There are now three races left in the 2006 season and with only two points between the title contenders there is plenty of scope for incidents of the non-racing variety to influence the outcome of the championship. With any luck the title will be decided simply by which of the two drivers finishes fastest in those three races - one more penalty for either will make the result a farce.

/ No comments / § ¶

Turkish Grand Prix organisers let off

19 September 2006 - 15:09

Today came the news that the organisers of the Turkish Grand Prix have been fined a record $5M for breaking the sports regulations in using the podium ceremony to make a political point. I have to admit that it passed me by at the time, but the winner's trophy was awarded to Filipe Massa by Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat, the controversy being that he was introduced as the president of the state of Turkish Northern Cyprus. With Cyprus having been divided since Turkey invaded it in 1974 and with neither the UN or any other country recognising Northern Cyprus as a state, this is a very delicate matter. You can read more about Cyprus in this BBC article. The Greek Cypriots were quick to put in a complaint to the FIA who then hauled the organisers before the World Motorsport Council.

Turkey risked losing its place on the Formula 1 callendar as a result of the controversial podium ceremony - the FIA represents the national motorsport bodies of 125 and must therefore insist on political neutrality at all events. What is interesting to me is that as serious a matter as this was, almost everyone asked by the media to comment on the possibility of sanctions thought that the Turkish Grand Prix would be reprieved. You can see the weasel words of many a team owner in this Autosport.com article.

It's easy to see why: they are only two years into a long deal to host the race; a huge amount of money was invested in building the Istanbul circuit and the circuit itself is rapidly becoming the second favourite (after Spa) with both drivers and television viewers. Even so, to say that the organisers can get away with any antics they like just because their Grand Prix is important commercially and popular with fans would set a dangerous prescedent. As such, I think the $5M fine, despite its record status, is the least sanction the FIA could apply.

/ No comments / § ¶

The Pitbull gets back into F1

18 September 2006 - 17:03

Former Jordan, Renault and Toyota technical director, Mike Gascoyne, has come full circle and done a deal to rejoin his old team, now known as Spyker MF1.

I'm surprised by this personally. When he was effectively sacked by Toyota way back in April, many including me, doubted Gascoyne would back in Formula 1. He earned enough in his time at Toyota not to have to work again, or at least be able to pursue a less stressful career of his choice. With Toyota having paid dearly for his services and not seemingly gained much, it seemed unlikely that another manufacturer team would hire him and an independent wouldn't be able to afford a high enough wage to bring him in. Clearly though F1 and the challenge of getting the best out of the resources available must have been too much. When his 'gardening leave' from Toyota is over in November Gascoyne will join Spyker MF1, his old team Jordan, once more. He admits that he has no chance to make a winning car there, but that there is still the challenge of getting the best out of the modest resources the team have.

/ No comments / § ¶

Death to the CDG Wing (the future of overtaking in F1)

18 September 2006 - 16:35

It seems that the teams who all paid lip-service to the FIA's CDG wing concept when it was unveiled last year have finally told the FIA what to do with it. To its credit, the FIA has listened and agreed to postpone introduction of aerodynamic changes, due to come into force in 2008, until it has examined alternative proposals that the teams have apparently been working on.

I've blogged before about the insanity of the CDG wing. To me it's always looked like the tail wagging the dog in that the problem with overtaking in modern F1 is not caused by the wake of the leading car, but the sensitivity of the following car to that same wake. That sensitivity comes from two factors: One is that in terms of overall downforce, too much now comes from the wings, winglets, flipups and other surfaces on the top of the car as a result of the FIA's year on year restrictions on diffuser size and wing element counts. Secondly, there is specifically a big problem with cars understeering dispropotionately when they get close to another car in a bend. There has always been understeer induced by the wake of a car ahead, but since the front wing has been raised mostly out of ground-effect, it has become almost impossible to pass in the bends.

The CDG wing attempted to improve overtaking by splitting the rear wing in two laterally. The centre of the car would have only neutral or downwards sloping bodywork which would in itself generate lift - not a good thing in a racing car that's supposed to travel at 200mph! It would however be augmented by two wings, one behind each of the rear wheels. These would generate some downforce (although how much would be achieveable in the wake of the wheels is questionable) and the vortices of the inner ends of the two wings would combine to generate a downwash in the centre of the car. The idea is apparently that a following car can get in that central downwash zone and improve it's downforce.

/ three comments / § ¶

The developing engine situation

17 September 2006 - 17:00

Firstly an update on the FIA-mandated of homologated engines: Following the game of brinkmanship between the FIA and the GPMA member teams earlier this year, all the teams agreed to enter Formula 1 from 2008 through 2011. Because the published regulations for those three seasons demanded the use of homologated engines, the reference engine having been deposited with the FIA before the British Grand Prix 2006, it is believed that all teams have already deposited engines with the FIA. Those are the engine specifications that would have been used if no further agreement had been reached.

Fortunately the engine manufacturers have seen sense. They had tried to get the FIA to allow a certain amount of development each season and since this obviously goes against the whole point of homologation (to pin costs and power levels), the FIA insisted that the manufacturers agreed to supply engines to the independent teams at a reasonable cost (that being about €5M per season - what the FIA estimate a supply of homologated engines will cost). There have been discussions over "fighting funds" and the supply of 'affordable' engines to independent teams before and they came to nothing with the indies having to sell up and the manufacturers pushing engine costs ever higher. Paul Stoddart was particularly vocal on just this subject when the manufacturers apparently whelched on promises he claimed they'd made. The only positive development since was when the FIA insisted on two-race engines, allowing Toyota to supply Jordan for the past two seasons. Now I'm not a fan of two-race engines, but I wonder what old specification Cosworth engine Jordan would have had to run, Minardi style, if that hadn't happened.

When time ran out on the GPMA member's prevarication over the supply of affordable engines, the FIA said enough is enough, engine homologation will happen from 2008. Knowing that a season and a half of expensive development before reverting to mid-2006-spec engines was madness, they have now agreed to bring the homologation period forward. It will now last at least two seasons, but will now run from the Chinese Grand Prix 2006 through to the end of the 2008 season or possibly longer. The interesting thing is that engines must have completed two race distances before they are lodged with the FIA. This is presumably to prevent manufacturers designing new components right upto the deadline and then asking for special dispensation to modify their engines during the homologation period when they prove unreliable.

/ No comments / § ¶

If I were prone to conspiracy theories...

09 September 2006 - 17:22

...then the actions of the stewards at the Italian Grand Prix today would be the final evidence I needed to show that the 2006 Formula One World Drivers Championship was being manipulated to manufacture either a close finish or a win for "FIA friend" Ferrari and the soon-to-be-retired Michael Schumacher.

Since I've been away some time I haven't yet commented on the subject of the summer: Tuned Mass Dampers and their banning by the FIA. I believe the FIA are totally wrong about TMD's being "moveable aerodynamic devices", partly because the purpose is to improve mechanical grip - any secondary aero benefit that can be ontained by allowing the car to run lower is minor and such improvements come from many other technological developments which aren't similarly seen as needing to be banned. Also I believe the regulations are flawed in their definition of devices having "aerodynamic influence". They should only include bodywork that is licked by the airstream. For something that completely enclosed within the bodywork to be considered an "aerodynamic device" is just ludicrous. The FIA were able to test their ban in front of the Court of Appeals and it stood up to the letter of the regulations as they stand. However, the appeal by the FIA and the way in which it was conducted (with Renault having presented extensive documentation and research to justify their position and the FIA just repeating it's previous judgement on a couple of pages) smacks of the FIA simply wanting the device banned and the "moveable aerodynamic devices" rule was just a simple way to achieve that without having to introduce a new rule mid-season.

It's why the FIA wanted the TMD banned mid-season that is more curious. Especially as they knew about them since last year. The reasonable person in me wants to accept that they had concerns about development getting out of hand with larger dampers appearing all over the cars forming a potential safety hazard, but with only 6 races left until the end of the season at the time, it would have been more reasonable to allow TMDs until the end of the season, then bring in a specific rule to ban them. To the conspiracy theorist it looks very much like the FIA wanted to reign in the Renault team who where making 2006 into the biggest cakewalk since Ferrari's in 2004 (only 3 races were won by other teams). 

Conspiracy theories would have been further fueled when Alonso was handed a 2 second qualifying time penalty in Hungary, although any reasonable person would agree that he did drive dangerously in practice and deserved a penalty (although the 2 seconds seems a bit harsh). Most of those conspiracy theorists shut up when Alonso's title rival, Michael Schumacher was handed his own 2 second qualifying time penalty due to passing under red in the final practice session. Some claim that Alonso tricked Schumacher into passing him when Jenson Button's engine blew up, but he clearly had plenty of time to slow down. Having handed Alonso a penalty (part of which was for passing under a yellow flag), they had no option but to penalise Schumacher similarly or risk accusations of bias.

The apparently independent stewards have handed out several penalties for blocking during qualifying this year. These vary in severity depending on whether the block was deemed deliberate or not and whether it was dangerous (or just really blatant like Schumacher's stopping on track in Monaco). Even if a driver impedes a flying lap of another driver by accident, they can still be penalised on the basis that they (or their team) should have been paying more attention to what's going behind them.

Following qualifying for the Italian Grand Prix, the stewards penalised Fernando Alonso by removing his three fastest qualifying laps (in the final session) for impeding Ferrrari driver, Filipe Massa's final flying lap. That's got to look mighty suspicious when Alonso is being chased down by Massa's teammate, Michael Schumacher, in the 2006 championship. It would be suspicious if Alonso had actually impeded Massa, but I was watching the supposed incident live on TV. Massa caught Fernando at the end of the lap and they never actually got closer than 4 or 5 car lengths. It actually looked like Massa backed off voluntarily and he certainly made no attempt to pass Alonso. The point is, at the same time Alonso was coming up to start a flying lap and couldn't go offline or massively slow to help out Massa without compromising his own final flying lap. If this indicent had occured earlier in the lap or if Alonso was on a slowing down lap or something, that would be an easier call to make, but should a driver have to go out of their way to help another on a flying lap even if it compromises their own lap?

That's the key question for me. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and given the permanent steward's heavy sanctions against Schumacher at Monte Carlo, it's hard to call him biased towards Ferrari. However, I think they have got a bee in their bonet about blocking this season. Some blocks have been blatant and should rightly be penalised, but this one was unavoidable and they have overstepped the mark by penalising Alonso for it. It was just bad luck that Massa came upon Alonso when he did. In the old days of qualifying drivers would get flying laps wrecked by traffic all the time and it wasn't considered necessary to penalise drivers then. That's partly because the 'qualifying on race fuel' rule means only your final flying lap really has a chance to get pole, magnifying the effect of any blown attempt. That's something that could be fixed for next season, but I don't see any evidence of that happening. Though at the rate we are going, if drivers are going to complain to the stewards about being blocked every single time a lap is even slightly ruined by another driver, we might as well go back to single-lap qualifying.

/ No comments / § ¶