Formula 1
Ä
Editorials

F1 ROUNDTABLE: SILLY SEASON AND MORE
GR&D Staff
August 19, 2005


    For the first time ever, the staff of Global Racing And Driving comes together to give you a casual fan and journalist based discussion about all things Formula One.  The participants will be introduced first by name and in subsequent appearances by initials.

Chuck Wilbert:  Welcome, one and all to the first ever GR&D Roundtable.  I'm the guy in charge here, you're editor-in-chief, Chuck Wilbert.

Jacques Cupé:  I thought this was casual Chuck.  By the way, I'm Jacques Cupé, GR&D's North American Racing Editor.

Alan Bischoff:  Nobody cares about Indy Cars anymore Jacques.  This is an F1 discussion so the F1 Editor should be here, that would be me, Alan Bischoff.

Fred Wilson:  And what would you guys do without someone whose care actually race?  NASCAR Editor Fred Wilson here to tell these guys how it's really done.

CW:  So now that the pleasantries are out of the way, let's get down to business on our Formula One Roundtable.  We're in the middle of what is going to be a very busy silly season.  Let's start with the big one.  Jenson Button: BAR or Williams?

AB:  Well, if Jenson gets his say, it will be BAR-Honda.  Williams has dropped the ball this season even more so than last.  Combine this with an uncertain sponsor information and a no-name engine supplier, I can't really blame him.  Williams is a sinking ship.

JC:  Cosworth is a good engine supplier.  Look at what they're giving Champ Car.  They have an 800hp engine that can run 1200 miles.  Just what Williams needs in Formula 1.  They also have a great IRL engine program and they're supplying that new series... umm... F1 Legends or Grand Prix Legends or something like that.  They have experience at producing competitive V8 engines.  This is what Williams needs.

FW:  And remind me what Cosworth has done for Chevy lately.  Oh yeah, Chevys in the IRL suck!  Cosworth has made a disgrace of the bowtie brand in the open-wheel ranks.

JC:  If Chevy would put some effort into helping their IRL teams like they did in NASCAR, maybe there would be some results worth notice!

FW:  Newsflash, Jacques!  Nobody cares about the IRL, without Danica and the Indy 500, they're nothing.

AB:  Back to the topic at hand, if you look at Button's contract, he may not have any choice in the matter.  The courts are going to look at this pretty cut-and-dry.

CW:  He needs 70% of the points the World Champion has to get the option picked up on his contract, I think.  But that's by some time in August, right Alan?

AB:  I can't recall the exact date off the top of my head, but BAR and Button don't really seem to be worrying about contractual obligations.  My contacts have given me a rumour that Button and BAR are almost ready to put pen to paper on a five-year, $88 million contract that would start in 2006.

CW:  So if that deadline passes between now and Turkey Button would fall 42 points short.

JC:  But we don't know how the disqualification and two-race ban will affect that.  But if what Alan says is true, Button has no hard feelings about it.  It will sure leave Sir Frank Williams will a bitter taste.

FW:  But the lawyers will love it.  That's the problem with all you open wheelers: All talk, no race.  Like the U.S. Grand Prix.  The most interesting part of next season is what might happen in a court this winter.  This doesn't happen in NASCAR.

JC:  What about Ford Vs. Kasey Kahne and Richard Childress Vs. Insurance Company, Texas Motor Speedway Vs. NASCAR, Kentucky Speedway Vs. NASCAR, and the soon to be Roush Racing Vs. Chip Ganassi over another future star, Jamie McMurray.

FW:  Only one will be, might be, over a driver's services.  You guys will be doing the same dance over this guy for years to come.  We tango once on this side of the pond if we have problems.  Besides, Button isn't the second-coming.  He might be the best thing for Britain but not F1.  I said it.  Deal with it.

AB:  It should be mentioned that this whole series of events may lead to Button taking a year sabbatical from Formula One.

FW:  B**** and complain if you don't get your way, ain't that right Jenson?

AB:  It's just a rumour.  If everything Jayski said is true...

CW:  So we can all agree that this is a large mess and one team won't like how this turns out.  Speaking of BAR-Honda, they've signed Rubens Barrichello, what does this mean?

AB:  This means one of a few things.  One, and the most likely, is that they are making a charge for the Drivers and Constructors titles in 2006, assuming they keep Button.

JC:  The other thing is that they could be replacing Button with a driver of equal or greater skill.

CW:  But this has started a domino effect in the driver market.  Filipe Massa goes to Ferrari to replace Barrichello.  Barrichello goes to BAR to replace Button, Sato, or Davidson.  Button/Davidson goes to Williams to replace Heidfeld.  Heidfeld goes to Sauber/BMW to replace Massa.  One big cycle of driver changes.

FW:  This just from what we know so far.  Heck, Bischoff, Heidfeld might go to BAR if Button takes off.  Then what?  Sato's the loser in the BAR/Williams feud.  Poor guy, lost the job Honda gave because he was Japanese.  Sponsors loved him, too bad he doesn't have any skill besides what's provided for him.

JC:  Just like Dale Earnhardt Jr.  Senior helped him out alot.  Tons of money goes into that team with mediocre results.  Kerry has some skill, Senior just didn't give him a seat.  Childress has proven that Kerry can drive given the chance.

FW:  You're pushing it Jacques, you're really pushing it.

AB:  Back to Fred's point, yes this pre-contract does throw a wrench into a couple of people's plans.  But Williams does have an option of Heidfeld's contract.  That throws a wrench into BAR's plans.  Williams can keep Nick or sell his contract.  Of course, if Williams goes as expected and picks up Webber's option, this only stops BMW's plans of having a German driver.

JC:  Another variable I'd like to throw in here is Sir Frank's eye for talent.  Out of American open-wheel racing, he's signed Zanardi, Montoya, and Villeneuve.  Not to mention others like Andretti, da Matta, and Monteiro who were at other teams.  Sebastian Bourdais has the speed and skill to make it in Formula One.  Cosworth could help him along and show Champ Car as a proving ground for future F1 stars.

FW:  The problem with Formula One, and open-wheel in general, is that a good amount of time, drivers get their seats based on their financial backing.  In NASCAR, we hand out contract on skill.

JC:  And youth.

CW:  Well, let's reach into the mailbag and see what the fans want us to cover.  First question comes from America: "Who will be the next American driver in Formula 1?"

FW:  The obvious answer is Scott Speed.  After that, I couldn't tell you who could make it.  Maybe NASCAR Busch Series Champion Martin Truex Jr.

JC:  Speed is doing quite well in GP2.  A.J. Allmendinger could be a good choice, he's quick but prone to making mistakes.  Sam Hornish could make a run out of the Indy Car Series but he has little road-course experience.

AB:  In my opinion, Speed has the best opportunity to make Formula 1 but I don't see him be very successful or very long-lived in the series.  Nothing to do with his talent but I think his association with Red Bull may not be the best for him.  Red Bull isn't faring all that well this season.

CW:  Can't add much to that.  Moving on, a question from Germany asks "Do sports car racers have crossover value to Formula One?"

JC:  Who was the last guy that did that?  Obviously couldn't have been that good.

AB:  Allan McNish was the last one to crossover.  He spent a year testing with Toyota before the team entered F1.  The testing didn't really help him drive though.  Career best of 8th, I think.

CW:  Michael Schumacher also dabbled in sports cars but he drove national Formula 3 and Formula 3000 before F1.

FW:  So he doesn't really count.  Let's face it people.  You can't jump out of a closed-wheel car and be quick in an F1 car.  Their completely different beasts.

AB:  If we want to include touring cars into the fray, Christijan Albers ran in DTM before joining Minardi.

CW:  Not that Minardi really counts as an F1 team with F1-calibre drivers.

FW:  Christijan?  What kind of name is Christijan?

JC:  It's pronounced "Christian", Fred.  Sometimes you can be so thick?

FW:  [Edited for content]

CW:  Question from Great Britain.  "As a fan, what do you want to see as F1's qualifying format?"

FW:  As a fan, I think the easiest type of session to keep track of is straight single-car qualifying.  Use whatever fuel you want and if you can make the changes during a pitstop, then you can change it after the car has gone out.

CW:  So eliminate the strategic part of qualifying and return it to driver vs. driver in a system reminiscent of NASCAR qualifying.

AB:  I would like to see a return to a twelve-lap or fifteen-lap maximum qualifying session.  Give them an hour and tell them that you have to enter a lap in each half-hour or you will receive a penalty like losing your top time or a ten-spot penalty on the grid.  Make the parc fermé rule similar to what Fred suggested above.  More strategy will go into this type of session and your almost guaranteed someone on track at all times.

JC:  I think that we should go back to the format that allowed your fastest time of the weekend to count for your spot on the grid.  This makes every session important to the fans at the track and the networks broadcasting to homes.  With the timing and scoring systems now it's easy to tell when someone is on a quick lap either personally or overall.  It increases the drama all weekend and places less pressure on the driver in just one one-hour session.

CW:  A couple of nostalgic views there.  I think I would adapt drivers current proposal of two qualifying attempts to one two-lap flying run.  This way if your tires are cold or you're held up by traffic, you can recover on the second lap.

FW:  Another NASCAR style idea.  We have some things done right on this side of the pond.

CW:  Well, since we're on the topic of qualifying, what about the other proposed qualifying systems?  The first is two twenty-five-minute halves where the driver's best time from each half will be added together to determine the grid.  The second is a knockout format: The five slowest drivers from the first fifteen minutes of the session would be on spots 16 to 20, the five slowest in the second fifteen would be 11 to 15, and the ten left would battle for 30 minutes for the top ten spots.  The third is a driver getting a single-flying-lap but getting a second chance, if wanted, after everyone has qualified.  The drivers would get the best time out their two attempts.

AB:  I'm not a big fan of any of these ideas.  The first idea should just take the fastest lap from each driver.  Eliminate the aggregate time rule but force them to put in a time in each half.  The second idea should be scrapped.  The third should not guarantee your first lap if you're going to take a second chance.

FW:  I think it would be neat to merge the first and second idea.  Set your best time in the first twenty-five.  If you're one of the ten fastest you get to move on to the second half for the front ten grid spots.  Mind you, I don't think any of these ideas make sense and they were smoking some strong s*** when they came up with these.

JC:  We didn't have this problem until they decided to make qualifying better for the sponsors.  If we thought about the fans instead of our wallets, qualifying may be better than it is now.  Comparatively few people watch qualifying anyway.  But I suppose it is important because it basically determines the finishing order.  They need to make qualifying fair for everyone so they all get a chance at poll.

CW:  I think no one cares about qualifying anymore.  And this current format penalizes anyone for a bad finish for the next couple of races.  It keeps the teams at the front there and the back-markers in the back.  There really is no urge to create competition between the top five and the middle three teams, or the middle three and the bottom two.

AB:  Well, that is just about all the time we have.

CW:  I thought that was my job.  Anyway, one last question, who will win the Formula One World Championship and the constructors title?

AB:  I would have to say Fernando Alonso.  He's too far out front and with this points system, Raikkonen won't catch up any time soon.  But Raikkonen will lead McLaren to the Constructors Title.

JC:  Alonso is going to win and so is Renault, end of story.

FW:  Being American, I'm a sucker for comeback stories.  Raikkonen make a strong charge over the last six races to squeak out the title in China.  McLaren caps off the dream comeback with the constructors title.

CW:  Wrapping up, I agree with Jacques.  Alonso and Renault have dominated too much to blow it now.  So that's it for now, we'll see you during the off-season for a 2005 recap and 2006 preview.  Thanks for joining us.