Posts Tagged ‘Formula 1’

Formula For (Environmental) Disaster?

Thursday, April 15th, 2010

When it comes to envir­on­mental issues Formula 1 is not exactly ‘on message.’ A Grand Prix car is a high-​​revving, incredibly noisy projectile and its sole purpose is to go quickly. Not, as yet, to go quickly econom­ically. It’s a wholly anti-​​social animal if that’s the way you want to see it.

Life changes and with even Australians lamenting the ‘Nanny state’, is Formula 1 at risk of falling victim to an argument that, like boxing, it belongs to a bygone age? Is it harmful, socially unacceptable and ultimately heading for a ban?

As Frank Williams said recently, while discussing the reintro­duction of KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems), “F1 needs a totem. KERS is a very meaningful thing for emissions control, it does save power. It’s expensive, it’s difficult technology and a big swallow, but sooner or later F1 is going to get aggro from one of these bodies that causes aggro…”

That is something that former FIA president Max Mosley concluded some time ago. He realised the need for F1 to be seen to be as green as possible, which is why he wanted to introduce KERS, reduce engine capacities and curb spending which, across F1’s manufac­turers, had reached a billion dollars annually.

Suddenly, instead of being a global advert­ising platform irres­istible to companies such as Honda, Toyota and Renault as well as premium brands like Ferrari, Mercedes and BMW, F1 found all the rats deserting a sinking ship. In quick succession, Honda, Toyota and BMW all left and Renault, you suspect, might have followed suit had it not been for its involvement in the Singapore ‘Crashgate’ saga. Instead, it sold 75% of the share­holding in its F1 operation.

The driving force behind this was not the envir­onment itself, so much as the financial envir­onment — the credit crunch. With sales figures catastrophic and redund­ancies and reduced working weeks a reality, it became ever more polit­ically difficult for manufac­turers to justify money spent on an F1 programme. And it wasn’t just car manufac­turers. Bookings for F1’s Paddock Club (where corporate guests are enter­tained lavishly at consid­erable expense) nosedived too. Suddenly it wasn’t very PC for the likes of RBS to be seen to be glad-​​handing lavishly while worldwide economies went bust.

But what the credit crunch has also done is accel­erate a change in advert­ising emphasis. Look at car advert­ising now, even for the likes of BMW, and it’s not performance oriented anymore. It’s all about frugality and pleasant exper­i­ences. Drives in the country, things like that.

Look at the tyre manufac­turers too. Bridgestone has used F1 to great effect as a brand building exercise but recently announced its withdrawal. Why? Not, whatever it might say, because of cost. It’s F1 spend relative to its profit is insig­ni­ficant. It’s because the head honcho is behind a ‘green’ marketing strategy and has a problem squaring that with Formula 1.

Michelin has recently signalled interest in a return to the F1 arena it left in 2006. But, signi­fic­antly, it wants to be able to demon­strate the energy efficiency of its tyres. Only recently, leading Autosport F1 journ­alist Mark Hughes has been writing about the possib­ility of linking a tyre’s rolling resistance with permitted fuel density. His suggestion is, the lower the rolling resistance of your tyres, the denser your fuel is allowed to be, allowing you to carry more fuel energy for less weight and go quicker. He advocates getting the tyre and fuel companies working hand-​​in-​​glove to improve efficiency across the board.

Thus far, F1 and eco-​​friendliness have been no more than nodding acquaint­ances. It was deeply ironic that having intro­duced KERS, F1 failed to make it compulsory. The likes of Ferrari, McLaren and Renault spent serious money devel­oping KERS systems for 2009 (McLaren-​​Mercedes is reckoned to have spent £50 million) only to see Red Bull and Brawn decide that the effects of a KERS system on chassis bulk outweighed its advantages, and blow them into the weeds!

Frank Williams is probably right. Sooner or later F1 will flag up on someone’s radar and it’s ‘need to be green’ may have to be more than a token gesture.

We're on Board with Jim Clark

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

Jim Clark

There’s many that are claimed to be the greatest British driver who ever lived. It’s a tough competition.

Jackie Stewart might have been the most pugna­cious whilst Sir Sterling Moss might have been the most preter­nat­urally talented. Nigel Mansell could well have been the most tenacious and workmanlike. James Hunt, on the other hand might have been the most playboy-​​like and fragrant. Lewis Hamilton, however, might turn out to be the most successful.

We know who was the most stylish. Jim Clark.

Superb vintage onboard footage below with the great Raymond Baxter comment­ating, and a fine repres­ent­ation of his sculpted features above.

Who is your favourite Brit driving legend?

The Future: Formula 1

Thursday, December 17th, 2009

There were seismic changes to Formula 1 in 2009.

Bickering over the sport’s financial arrange­ments and governance led to FOTA (the Formula One Teams Association) announcing a breakaway champi­onship at the British GP at Silverstone in June, then back-​​tracking once it became evident that Max Mosley’s reign as FISA/​FIA president was truly over and that he would not stand for re-​​election in October’s election.

Brawn_1

Despite the FOTA U-​​turn the fact is that in the last 12 months Formula 1 has witnessed the withdrawal of manufac­turer entries from Honda, BMW and Toyota. And, at the time of writing, Renault is consid­ering bids for its Enstone-​​based operation that was taken over from Benetton at the start of the decade.

Whether the deser­tions are purely the result of a catastrophic economic situation for the motor industry or more deeply entrenched dissat­is­faction over the sport’s governance, is a moot point. Mosley certainly believed that Formula 1 was unviable in the current climate if it basically amounted to a spending contest.

Max argued that manufac­turers have always used F1 for their own promo­tional purposes while it suited, but always follow their own agendas. To safeguard the sport, he said, it needed to be viable for commercially-​​funded private entrants. Events of the past few months seem to have vindicated his assessment. We have returned to a position of multiple private entrant ‘purist’ racing teams, plus Ferrari and Mercedes.

Mclaren_2

Back in the seventies, eighties and early nineties, that was basically the sport’s compos­ition. Largely British private teams such as Lotus, Tyrrell, Brabham, McLaren and then Williams dominated with off-​​the-​​shelf Cosworth engines. Opposition came from Ferrari, Alfa Romeo and Matra, then came Renault, BMW, TAG-​​Porsche and Honda as the turbo era dawned.

As Bernie Ecclestone’s vision developed Formula 1 into a world class global sport with unsur­passed reach – the Olympics and the soccer World Cup generate bigger audiences but only once every four years – it became an irres­istible promo­tional platform for the world’s motor manufac­turers. Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar, Ferrari, Honda, Toyota, Renault were all there at the same time – unpre­ced­ented for the sport.

Renault_1

For some, parti­cip­ation was enough to increase brand awareness but, for others, winning was essential. And they couldn’t all win. Team staffing levels approached four figures and budgets went through the roof. Collectively, the manufac­turers were spending a billion dollars a year on engine devel­opment alone. Mosley, a man who witnessed the off-​​the-​​shelf Cosworth era first hand with his March company, thought it was both bonkers and unsustainable.

Suddenly the independents, including top class outfits like Williams, were strug­gling to be viable businesses without major manufac­turer backing. And, whereas Max and Bernie had been able to control the privateers, often by divide and rule tactics, the presence of heavily backed corporate players threatened to take the sport out of their control. Politics started to dominate sport.

On the plus side, interest grew and compet­ition became closer than ever. In 2009 we enjoyed entire grids covered by little more than one second — unthinkable just a decade ago.

On paper, all the factors that made F1 so attractive to the manufac­turers still remain, albeit that as things stand you can’t go out and beat six or seven of your major rivals. The inter­esting time will come when the economy turns. We will see how many return. The regulatory path followed by new FIA president Jean Todt will also be influ­ential, along with his success or failure in imple­menting a planned glide path of reduced expenditure aimed at reaching early nineties levels. Many have serious doubts about the viability of such a target.
Brawn_2

The immediate future gives rise to some mouth-​​watering match-​​ups on track. None is quite so compelling as the prospect of Britain’s back-​​to-​​back champions, Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button, lining up as team mates in identical McLarens.

Button’s talks with McLaren were initially viewed as expedient for both parties – McLaren was surely turning the screw on Kimi Raikkonen’s negoti­ating team and Button was trying to eke out a bigger pay day from Brawn and Mercedes. Nobody quite believed it when the deal went through.

Some suspect that Button, with the pressure finally off, took temporary leave of his senses. To head into a McLaren envir­onment where Lewis has been king for three years and take him on – is a big ask. Fernando Alonso couldn’t do it when Lewis was a rookie never mind a world champion.

While it’s fair to say that many don’t rate Jenson’s chances too highly, it’s not as simple as all that. Button started ’09 with an undoubted car advantage due to Brawn’s double diffuser and long devel­opment lead time. By the end of the season the team had been caught and arguably overtaken. McLaren initially didn’t cope with the new aero regula­tions but once it solved its problems became a potent force.

Jean_Todt

Jean Todt’ puckish of genius when running the Scuderia will be applied to the FIA

Next year with refuelling banned, it will become vitally important to look after your tyres, the rears partic­u­larly, over a race distance. That may play right into the hands of Button’s super-​​smooth style which is likely to take less out of the rubber that Hamilton’s more flamboyant oversteer-​​pronounced technique. On the other side of the coin, the change in handling charac­ter­istics over a race distance is more likely to favour the more adaptable driver, which is likely to be Hamilton. It will be fascin­ating to see how it pans out, not to mention whether or not McLaren can keep a lid on the potential tensions of two star drivers again – something it patently failed to do with Senna/​Prost and Alonso/​Hamilton.

The other great plus is that the future of the British Grand Prix seems assured after Bernie Ecclestone signed a recent 17-​​year deal with Silverstone following the collapse of Donington’s ambitious plan – another victim of the economic situation.

With potential EU compet­ition issues clouding F1 rights ownership issues at the start of the decade, it was no surprise that F1’s new super-​​venues: Sepang, Shanghai, Istanbul, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi and, next year, South Korea, were all outside Europe. Now though, with those issues appar­ently resolved by the FIA divesting itself of the commercial rights, we’ve had Valencia and the new deal for Silverstone. That at least, is a blessing. While the new locations are spectacular – witness Yas Marina in particular – they must always be balanced with F1’s tradi­tional core events.

The Brawn Enigma

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

In case you have been cast into a partic­u­larly opaque motor­sport limbo this last week, you will know that Ross Brawn, 55 in November, has pulled off a stunning achievement. The team he created out of the ashes of Honda’s withdrawal from Formula One has executed a stunning double victory in the drivers’ and constructors’ world championship.

But Brawn, by his own admission, is not a hands-​​on design ace, sketching out ideas on the back of fag packets or waking up during the night with that ‘lightbulb’ idea. That, he admits, is more his rival Adrian Newey, whose Red Bull RB5 has made such a fight of the second half of this season’s champi­onship. Ross is renowned for his depth of exper­ience and his man management expertise.

Sometimes,” he says, “Very good people can be worried about the compet­it­iveness of the racing envir­onment, worried about making a mistake or getting something wrong. What I try to do is put people in the right places, give them the benefit of my exper­ience, encourage them to perform and hopefully bring the best out of them. I’ve worked with some very good teams in my career and this Brawn team is one of the best.”

Brawn’s first racing role was with the March team in 1976. He joined Williams two years later and worked everything from a milling machine to a wind tunnel. After design jobs with both the Haas Lola and Arrows teams, he was recruited by Jaguar and brought F1 technology to the superb Jaguar XJR14 which won the world sportscar champi­onship in 1991. Tom Walkinshaw then took him to Benetton as technical director, where he master­minded back-​​to-​​back world champi­on­ships for Michael Schumacher in 1994 – 5.

When Schumacher left for Ferrari he took Ross with him and over the next decade, under Jean Todt’s management and Brawn’s technical leadership, Ferrari dominated Formula 1 in a manner never witnessed before. Brawn earned a reputation as a demon race strategist, but modestly says, ‘I think you’ve got a bit more flexib­ility when you’ve got Michael in the cockpit!’

After working in such an intense envir­onment for so long, Brawn needed a sabbatical and spent 2007 indulging one of his other great passions – fishing. When he returned to the F1 fray it was as team principal of Honda.

But then Honda dropped a bombshell. Amid the credit crunch, with car sales plummeting and factory closures, it withdrew from F1. Brawn, if not quite kicking and screaming, was led somewhat reluct­antly into the realms of team ownership. It was, he says, never an ambition to have his name above the door but a management buyout was the only viable way to save 700 plus jobs at Honda F1’s Brackley HQ.

Experts estimated it would have cost Honda $100 million plus in redund­ancies to close the team and so, instead, the Japanese allowed Brawn to take it off their hands and provided part of an operating budget for the first year.

On the one hand Brawn GP was a ‘new’ team. But on the other it was a highly competent group of people with huge resource via the investment Honda had already made.

Other factors helped. First, new aerody­namic regula­tions for 2009 were the most signi­ficant changes for 25 years. Second, Honda’s ‘08 season was such a dead loss that a line had been drawn under the devel­opment programme very early on, with all hands turning to the 09 project. Third, now without Honda’s engine, Brawn managed to secure the Mercedes Benz V8, widely held to be the best current unit in F1.

Crucially too, Brawn was one of just three of the 10 F1 teams to design its 2009 car around a ‘trick’ double diffuser, which generated more downforce than the oppos­ition and got the team off to a flying start. Button won six of the first seven grands prix. It looked as if they could do no wrong. But, mid season, things started to go awry.

The oppos­ition was now catching up with the double diffuser concept and Brawn itself suffered a performance drop-​​off due to an inability to generate tyre grip when track temper­atures were lower. And Button suffered with it more than Barrichello. Team data proves that Barrichello’s more aggressive style generates more heat than Button’s ultra-​​smooth approach. What may become a disad­vantage over a race distance when tyres need to be looked after, is a positive over a single quali­fying lap. And, with overtaking as difficult as it is in F1, qualify too far down and your race day is terminally compromised.

That has largely been the story of the second half of Brawn’s season. Silverstone, Nurburgring and Spa were all affected by it. Normally, the more compliant a chassis and the kinder to its tyres, the better. And it will certainly be an advantage in 2010 when refueling is banned and a set of rubber has to last an entire race distance.

Going into the last two races of the season, Button needed just six points (one third place or two fifths) from the remaining two races to clinch the title. Despite that Honda found­ation, the fact that he clinched the title before the final race consti­tutes a truly stunning achievement for Brawn.

The week the team got back from winning the first race in Melbourne, Ross had to lay-​​off 250 of his 700 staff. Brawn is located a stone’s throw from rivals Renault, Red Bull and Williams in motor racing’s equivalent of Silicon Valley. There is a pool of expertise but, suddenly, with cost-​​cutting the future, there were too many cooks. It was a stressful time for everyone.

The team’s achieve­ments are a ringing endorsement to sound management. Not to mention the valid­ation of Jenson Button as a truly first rate racing talent.