Monaco Qualifying: No one can rain on Rosberg's parade

Everything happens for a reason, particularly in F1 wherein everything is measured, analysed and (hopefully) accounted for. And there were lots of reasons to think in advance that Mercedes, and more to the point Nico Rosberg's Mercedes, would be hard to keep away from pole position today. Sure enough pole position is exactly what Rosberg claimed. And not even F1's ultimate googly of it being Monaco with rain around during the qualifying hour was able to avert Nico's fate.

Nico Rosberg starts from the front once again
Credit: Morio / CC

The Mercs have had Saturdays pretty much to themselves in 2013, this being their fourth pole in row as well as Nico's third. The car was several strides quicker than all others in the tight final Barcelona sector in qualifying there, viewed pretty much universally as a guide to Monaco pace. Monaco was markedly one of the silver cars' most competitive weekends of last year. And Nico has been faster than everyone seemingly since a wheel was turned in the principality on Thursday morning - the qualifying hour simply made it four sessions from four which he topped. Sometimes in F1 cause and effect are insurmountable.

As mentioned it rained in advance of the qualifying session, and to start with it was definitely a track for intermediate rubber. The drivers earned their money with some serious tip-toeing, facing the perpetual threat of missing the cut due to not being on the right tyres at the right time (as well as of ending their session against the scenery) while times tumbled and the timing screen as it often does at such moments resembling the display of a fruit machine. The track was good for slicks though by halfway through the hour, and in the event the biggest casualties of the elements were Paul di Resta in Q1 and Pastor Maldonado in Q2. And with a dry track and just about all the big names having survived the detour normality reasserted itself.

Thus again it was advantage Rosberg, and no one was able to rain on his parade. His stable mate Lewis Hamilton threatened oh-so briefly to snatch the pole from him, indeed dipped under his time at the last before Nico went even quicker almost immediately. While Sebastian Vettel - who bounced back after a difficult Thursday (something he does with such regularity that it shouldn't really surprise us) - very nearly did the unthinkable and plunder the pole for himself, but a small mistake at Mirabeau kept him starting from third.

Is Sebastian Vettel best-placed for tomorrow?
Credit: Morio / CC

But Seb may still be in a good place for tomorrow's race. To continue the chief theme of this season Mercedes may not be as potent then as in qualifying; borrowing from the words of Clive James in a similar situation, for them it's a pity that the race always has to come along and spoil it all. Some things tilt the balance back in the team's favour this time nevertheless: tyre wear is low around this track, and Ross Brawn described the Mercs' race simulation runs on Thursday as 'respectable' (Rosberg was more cautious though, saying that Mercedes still has 'some way to go'). And, oh yeah, this is Monaco, where overtaking is next to impossible. At the very least Mercedes should be in a position to control things, strategy aside. The Mercs may not win tomorrow, but their conspicuous race-day slumps of Spain and Bahrain should not be repeated.

On the subject of strategy some reckon that given everything and with Mercedes filling the top two positions there will be deliberate 'backing up' of the pack by whichever Merc is placed second so to allow their stable mate to make a break. Such things are possible, and indeed Ross Brawn used to enact such strategies regularly in his Ferrari days. But I'd be surprised if we see anything like it tomorrow, mainly because it's hard to imagine Lewis agreeing to it (I certainly wouldn't like to be the one who has to suggest it to him), while you'd imagine if Rosberg ended up second he would also be reluctant to sacrifice himself given he's been the faster all weekend (and may also be 'owed one' after Malaysia).

The grid still seems well-poised for an interesting race, as behind the Red Bulls we have Kimi Raikkonen and then Fernando Alonso on the third row, the two drivers who may have the strongest race pace. But as is often the case in Monaco, being able to take advantage of it and avoiding being stuck in traffic is much easier said than done. Some speculate about enacting a one-stopper, but doing so doesn't appear at all easy. Not for nothing Alonso's talking merely in terms of getting ahead of his championship rivals rather than of winning.

But still, for the first time in a long time we sit before a Monaco F1 race day with reasons to think that it will not be the usual procession. Thank heavens for those Mercedes.

Monaco Preview: Spin of the roulette wheel

What is it with Monaco? Really, there are so many reasons to dislike Grands Prix there. It is an anachronism: the modern F1 car outgrew the torturous course not so much years but decades ago (Nelson Piquet once likened driving there to riding a motor cycle in your front room) while overtaking is a near impossibility. It would for various reasons all be laughed out of town if proposed from scratch today. Clive James once noted dryly that 'it is said these days with increasing frequency that Monaco makes a nice change from Grand Prix racing'.

Furthermore, the wealth on show is ostentatious, and the poseur occupants of the yachts in the harbour in all probability have little interest in the sport in the rest of the year. On the face of it, there seems very little to look forward to about F1's annual visit to the principality.

There's nothing quite like Monaco
Credit: Niels Mickers / CC

But we do look forward to it. And to the point that it is (genuinely) hard to imagine F1 without it. Monaco has an intangible quality that ensures it is this sport's Blue Riband event, the sort that just about every sport, and not just motor sport, has. Just as tennis has Wimbledon, golf has the Masters, and Indycars has the Indianapolis 500 (and I could go on), F1 has Monaco, the event most commonly associated with the activity. And American racing did its best to demonstrate the importance of this sort of thing after Champ Cars split from the Indianapolis 500 in 1996 and took most of the teams and drivers with it; for all the virtues of the championship it never managed to overcome it not having the big draw and had eventually to return somewhat with its tail between its legs.

So why is Monaco afforded such status? It's a good question. Part of it no doubt is related to the race's heritage. The first Grand Prix around the principality was held all the way back in 1929, and the layout of streets that cars race around today isn't much different. All of the sport's greats have graced the place.

Part of it also is that watching racing cars around Monaco is an enchanting experience. The backdrop is one of the very most iconic and beautiful of any sporting event, let alone in motor sport. Wherever you turn in Monaco when the racing is on it seems you see something eye-catching. And despite having the lowest average speed of the entire F1 calendar, nowhere else do you get a stronger impression of speed as the cars flash through the narrow gaps between the barriers.

Monaco's heritage is a key part of its appeal, this is the 1931 race
Credit: Bibliothèque nationale de France / CC

Further, almost all of F1's greatest drivers can point to an occasion racing around the principality streets in which they transcended their machinery. Nowhere other than Monaco do you get a stronger concept of what the F1 driver is personally contributing, nowhere else can the driver make more of a difference to their lap time over and above what their car offers, nowhere else are mistakes punished as swiftly and brutally. It's not for nothing that drivers cherish a win at Monaco far over and above wins just about anywhere else. Not coincidentally the list of Monaco Grand Prix winners reads a lot like a who's who of F1 history.

Additionally, while we may instinctively associate races here with a scarcity of overtaking, things happen at Monaco; the Grand Prix here has an uncanny knack of attracting drama and incident. Throughout history many such examples have gone into folklore, such as Stirling Moss in the outdated Lotus 18 staying clear of the more powerful Ferraris for the entire distance in 1961; Jochen Rindt's scarcely plausible chase down of Jack Brabham in 1970 which culminated with the equally implausible sight of Black Jack binning it on the final corner of the final lap, giving the win to Rindt; the extraordinary late laps in 1982 where a succession of leading cars faltered and the likely winner changed continuously like the display of a fruit machine; Ayrton Senna's celebrated 'star is born' drive in the Toleman in the 1984 rains; Nigel Mansell's desperate but ultimately futile attempts to usurp Senna in 1992; and Olivier Panis's win from 14th on the grid in 1996, possibly the biggest shock win in F1 history. And there are a multitude more that could be mentioned.

And there are reasons to think that this weekend's Monaco race could be another that goes into the memory. If nothing else, there are all sorts for the contenders to think about. And not the least of these are two cars that go by the name of Mercedes.

Pole position counts for a lot at the principality; as mentioned overtaking around the track is as rare as hen's teeth. And the assumption is that the Mercs have the front row taped. A silver car has been on pole in each of the last three rounds (and possibly it would have been four had it not rained in Malaysia's qualifying hour), and it was the quickest by a distance in Barcelona's final sector in qualifying, usually the barometer of who'll go well at Monaco. Plus both of its drivers tend to go well at this track, and of course the car at Monaco last year had a strong weekend particularly by its 2012 standards, Michael Schumacher setting the quickest qualifying time and Nico Rosberg finishing the race in a close second place. Yet equally it is not at all clear what their pace will be like in the race with their well-trodden problems with thermal degradation of the tyres over a stint, even with Monaco being less taxing on rubber than most tracks. But leapfrogging them will not be the work of a moment. Juan Pablo Montoya once opined that a F3000 car parachuted into pole position for the Monaco Grand Prix would win the race. Maybe this weekend his theory will in effect be put to the test.

And with this near-impossibility of passing strategy becomes vital. But will Mercedes be tempted to stick it out at the front no matter how slow its cars get? And if so what can those behind do about it?

Will the Mercedes be leading the way?
Credit: Morio / CC

Last year at Monaco it was one-stoppers all round, though the race was something akin to trench warfare with all the sharp end contenders seemingly prioritising not ceding their position over going on the attack particularly (plus rain was a threat throughout, and no one wanted to pit for slicks only to immediately have to pit again for rain tyres). To continue the chief theme of 2013, tyres seem important this weekend. There will be lots of work done on Thursday in practice to see what sort of longevity can be got from the Pirellis, and for a one-stopper to work then it's likely you'll need to run for upwards of 25 laps on the supersofts as well as get upwards of 50 from the softs (remember the latter was good only for a few laps in China). Lotus, followed by Ferrari, will be the most probable to try this if it is possible. Pirelli has said however that a two-stopper is most likely, while in 2011 we had a three-way fight for the win between a one-stopper, a two-stopper and a three-stopper. We may see a similar divergence of opinion on Sunday, particularly with the Mercedes conundrum up ahead. But as always at Monaco those on the pit wall will need to be very light on their feet come the race: safety cars are frequent, while track position is vital and being stuck behind a slower car can end your chances at a stroke. There is also some rain forecast for race day, and if that comes to pass then all bets are off. It's not at all circumspect to say that working out where this Sunday's winner is coming from is not much more predictable than the spin of one of the roulette wheels in Monaco's casino.

In the relatively recent past we also used to talk about Monaco specialists (such as Senna) and those who could be counted on not to do so well there (such as Piquet), but it's hard to pinpoint such things these days. Almost all of this year's most likely contenders have won a Monaco Grand Prix before: Alonso, Button, Vettel, Webber, Hamilton and Raikkonen all have a triumph or two on their respective CVs. Of other credible candidates, Rosberg, Massa and Perez can also point to good performances. So no help there either.

And Monaco is often spoken of by engineers as the one round of the year which sits in isolation, and the learning from the weekend cannot be applied elsewhere to any great extent. But for all that we talk of Monaco's capacity to surprise, perhaps we talk about it too much. Senna won here six times, Schumacher five, Prost four, and for the last five years the car that won here also won the championship. In other words, while Monaco 'levels' to some degree, even at this venue a quick car is still a quick car (and a slow one still a slow one). Therefore, in the broadest sense, we shouldn't expect too much of a variation from the usual running order this weekend.

In a town which rather revolves around games of chance, it seems that the outcome of this year's Monaco race is going to share many of the same characteristics. For more reasons than one, I'm glad I'm just going to be watching on.

Be careful what you wish for - views on the Pirelli changes

Judging by much of the reaction something hideous took place at the Spanish Grand Prix in Barcelona last weekend. Unspeakable. Something that sent F1 into the realms of farce. And it was all do to with the familiar pariah of the Pirelli tyres. One member of the press, that reliable source of wisdom, said the race was 'tyranny of the tyre...the unloved novelty of four stops per car is conspiring to reduce the sport to a rambling sequence of place-swapping that bears little resemblance to racing'. Martin Brundle noted: 'Qualifying clearly means nothing these days, just ask the front row Mercedes boys...It's all about saving new tyres and then trying not to abuse even those on race day. Pirelli simply have to sort this out.' Red Bull's boss Dietrich Mateschitz joined in, saying: 'This has nothing to do with racing anymore. This is a competition in tyre management.' And these comments were just the beginning.

It seemed F1 had got itself into one heck of a pickle. But Pirelli moved quickly to atone, announcing in the days afterwards that there would be changes in time for the Canadian Grand Prix, sooner than previously thought, and the changes would serve to add durability and therefore reduce the number of pitstops, by moving the tyres back more in the direction of how they were last year.

Fair enough? It's decisive action, after all. But perhaps the matter is not as simple as that. And solving problems in F1 is often rather like having a bubble underneath your wallpaper: you press it down only for it to pop up somewhere else. In other words by 'solving' one problem you create others. And this may be a classic case of it.

Pariah Pirelli is once again causing debate
Credit: Rich Jones / CC

At times like this it's always valuable to look back and remind ourselves how we got to where we are. F1, lest we forget, for years had a massive problem in the product it offered to spectators - F1 racing cars very rarely raced each other. From a peak of over 40 overtakes per dry race in the mid-1980s it had fallen gradually, and then off a cliff, to around 10 passes per dry race from 1994 onwards (see the Clip the Apex stats). A massive drop by anyone's standards. And this decline was not lost on anybody, the on track fare was hardly worth watching. Without exaggeration all you would have usually was qualifying, a start, a first lap shake out and then....next to nothing. Pre-ordained fuel strategies would simply play themselves out and while the drivers certainly worked hard their contribution in some ways was futile, almost like they were simply along for the ride if they had the strength and stamina to hang on. As Rob Smedley noted recently what would happen then in the normal run of things was that a race's outcome would be known on a Saturday afternoon, barring disasters such as unreliability (an increasingly rare event too). Ironically enough, races around Barcelona particularly were notorious for this; I recall the Autosport magazine after the 1999 race there with the banner headline across its front cover 'Is F1 too boring?' or words to that effect. Plus ca change...

It's not at all melodramatic to say that the matter outlined above was rather drastic. The problem was wrestled with for years via various technical changes but it remained firmly and maddeningly uncracked, but then in the 2010 Canadian Grand Prix we appeared to stumble upon an answer. The tyre supplier of the time Bridgestone for whatever reason got its sums wrong and, rather than providing its usual tyres that would easily last a race, turned up with those of the gumball variety, way too soft to last even half of the race. And the race we ended up with was a thriller, with many overtakes and divergent strategies playing themselves out. For an afternoon we had F1 racing again.

It was a reminder of what we should have known all along. Namely that while aerodynamics and the resultant problems of 'dirty air' were part of the contribution to the soporific races we were getting, so too was the lack of variation in pace during a race, and it's variation of pace that creates overtaking. And with tyres no longer degrading much, and especially when combined with refuelling which reduces races to a series of sprints, variation of pace was reduced to next to nothing. With this combined with having the quickest cars starting at the front and the slowest at the back then we should not be surprised that they don't pass each other - why would they? The cars simply move apart. Bridgestone refused to provide tyres like those it had inadvertently in Canada again but when the Japanese firm left the sport at the year's end its replacement Pirelli was asked to produce something similar, deliberately, every time.

And therein lies the rub. Just as the voter wants lower tax but higher spending, judging by what I've read on online forums some F1 fans want drivers pushing at the maximum throughout as well as entertaining races with overtaking. It's very difficult to have both.

It's also disturbing that I've read some comments since the Spanish race urging a return to pre-Pirelli spec F1. I can only assume these people suffer from selective memory, are gluttons for punishment or are simply prone upon encountering challenges to demand change without thinking of the consequences ('something has to be done; this is something, so let's do it'). While we can have a debate about the details of the Pirelli formula and of possible tweaks to it, such a drastic switch back to the future certainly will not get the support of me. It would in my view amount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The Pirelli tyres have improved the on track fare
Credit: Alex Comerford / CC

And Pirelli since arriving back in F1 has for just about the whole time broadly got it right, in terms of what's it's being asked at least. This is doubly impressive when one considers that it has no up-to-date test car (apparently it currently relies upon a 2010 Lotus, from prior to aggressive diffuser blowing etc), as well as that there is so little testing generally and what there is in cold pre-season where track temperatures tend not to be representative of what we get during the season. Purists have derided the 'fake' nature of it all, as well as the fact that drivers could no longer push at the limit to the extent that they had before. But there has almost never been a time in F1 when drivers could push all the time, particularly not from prior to the 'refuelling era' of 1994 onwards, and as for the 'fake' point, F1 by any definition has never been pure and in any case I'd much rather defend that point than defend dull races. The Pirelli approach is in my view an example of a good regulation: adding a lot to the spectacle, giving the teams a little bit extra to think about, but not ultimately being distortive of who is quick and who isn't.

And it continues to be the case this year, perhaps more than before. There is a more more consistent front three than there was last year, and the three are revered drivers, world champions all, and are in strong teams. It's hard to argue that we're getting lotteries; it's also hard to argue that talent isn't winning. And I challenge those who feel that F1 has become a mockery to tell me which of the winners or podium finishers so far in 2013 didn't deserve to be there. Further, for all of the Spanish Grand Prix's tyre saving Fernando Alonso won the thing by pushing. Those who tried to cruise and collect lost. Perhaps there was a lesson in that.

The risk of changing the tyres' spec is therefore obvious, that in reacting there will be an overreaction, and will only ensure a return of tepid processional fare for our Sunday afternoons. This is especially so as the evidence of the past two seasons is that the tyre situation gets less lairy as the year goes on by itself anyway, as teams begin to get their heads around the challenges (as well as that, irony of ironies, at that point we start to complain that races aren't as much fun as before). Also, the last three rounds we've had are for various reasons just about the toughest on the tyres of the whole calendar. One is put in mind of the adage: be careful what you wish for, as it might come true.

The Spanish Grand Prix however did fall on the wrong side of ideal in terms of the rubber's fragility, just as the soft tyre available in China did, and Pirelli has always maintained that four stops per race, which was Spain's default, is too many. Further both races contained the unwelcome sight of a driver choosing not to fight a car behind in order to aid tyre preservation. And obviously there needed to be change to stop the succession of delaminations seen recently; this goes without saying and were the changes just about that the I find it difficult to believe there'd be any objection. But the changes announced by Pirelli went beyond this, and were also about increasing durability and reducing the number of pit stops. We haven't seen the impact of the changes yet of course or the amount that they make a difference so to an extent we need to wait and see. In Pirelli's Paul Hembery we have got someone in charge who is responsive but can ordinarily be trusted to not over react. And it's worth making the point that I don't feel any ill-will towards Pirelli or Hembery in all of this, Hembery in my view is one of the very best things about contemporary F1, and he and the Italian company have been put into a near-impossible position, pulled in several directions at the same time as well as more generally serving teams and a sport that do little to help them.

But still it's tempting to ask why now for these changes, and why now for the fuss. After all two years ago the Spanish race was won with a four-stopper, as indeed was the previous race in Turkey, and data such as lap times and race lengths from the two Spanish races then and now are close to identical. While there was grumbling then I do not recall anything close to the same level of panic, nor were the compounds changed as a consequence. And, whatever the formula, for as long as there are pitstops there will be those who try to get a better result by eking out one fewer with a tortoise strategy. At the very least the language of the apocalypse from some, that this is the end of racing as we know it, is premature.

Perhaps as Jonathan Noble suggested part of it is that Mercedes's new-found qualifying pace has drawn attention to its long-standing inability to manage the heat of its rear tyres properly, thus amplifying how distinct races appear from ultimate one-lap pace recently. Perhaps the struggles of McLaren and of Hamilton (in the races) has encouraged the influential British media contingent to find things to complain about. Perhaps Kimi Raikkonen is right that 'people will always complain'.

But there is a big difference to before. A major player in the movement for change is champion constructor Red Bull. It has a high media profile at the best of times, and at various points this year it has engaged in a persistent and vociferous campaign of lobbying Pirelli both directly and via the media for the tyres to be changed. And Red Bull of course won the two four-stop races mentioned in 2011, and while the team's senior figures now when on the subject of the tyres insist on couching their arguments in terms of the good of the sport and what's good for the fans, like any team what feelings it may have on these are subjugated decisively by its desire to win. And moreover Bernie Ecclestone's had his say by now too, and perhaps unsurprisingly supports the Red Bull case. The Bulls' close relationship with Bernie is well-known, and it's also known that Bernie met Red Bull's big boss Dietrich Mateschitz (as mentioned another who's had something to say on the subject since the Spanish race) recently. And we also know that even these days what Bernie wants in F1 Bernie tends to get.

Red Bull acolytes might seethe at the suggestion that the controversy and the resultant changes are about them, and to some extent they'd have a point. People are of course capable of making their own minds up and it's not only Red Bull that has objected to the tyre situation, as well as that it is possible, indeed Paul Hembery has insisted as much, that the change to the tyres would have happened anyway and aren't about supporting particular teams. But still you cannot help but wonder whether there'd be the same level of froth, and more to the point whether we'd be where we've ended up, without the Milton Keynes team's regular interventions. The crux is that Red Bull feels that were the tyres brick hard its cars would be running away with races. Maybe they would, but quite how the rather glaring fact that the tyres wouldn't be brick hard eluded Red Bull when designing the car is anyone's guess. Pirelli's product has been soft for the past three seasons, and there was little secret that they would be softer still this year. And other teams, most notably Lotus and Ferrari, appear to have done a better job within what Jimmy Durante called 'da conditions dat prevail', on certain days anyway. Designing a car unsuitable for the tyres that you know fine well what they'll be like doesn't strike me as making you deserving of sympathy, it strikes me as getting it wrong.

Red Bull has been a major player in lobbying for change
Credit: Morio / CC

There is further nothing even in this year's tyres endemic in precluding a driver from pushing, it is a matter of getting the car right. This was noted by Nico Rosberg after the Spanish race. He would have been within his rights to feel frustration given he had sank from pole position at the start to a distant sixth place by the end. But his views were considered: 'Look at Fernando Alonso, who was 70 seconds quicker than me, not even including the first stint because he was still behind me. He is not going to be doing too much tyre saving. I'm sure he can have some fun and push a little bit. So maybe it's wrong to blame the tyres and we just need to sort out the car in some way.' There you have it: if you have to cruise through a race it's the car's fault. Not the tyres, not the regulations.

And the risk to changing the tyres now on how F1 appears is great. Whatever the reality of the matter as far as perception goes the algorithm is perfect: Pirelli produces compounds; Red Bull struggles with wear in a few races; Red Bull kicks up a stink; Pirelli changes compounds. At the very least it doesn't look good. In such situations not only must justice be done it must be seen to be done.

There are also practical impediments that have been apparently been ignored. F1 regulations are always open to interpretation of course, but Article 12.6.3 suggests that tyre specifications are not to be changed after 1 September of the previous season unless there is unanimous agreement for a change among the teams (which there definitely hasn't been). That's not to mention the technical challenges to the teams of changing the tyres mid-season in terms of suspension settings, modelling in the wind tunnel and CFD simulations etc etc, and doing so in a year wherein big changes await for the following season thus ensuring resources are already stretched.

It's therefore rather ironic that Red Bull and others who have been seeking to change the tyres have been talking in dare I say slightly pious terms of what 'real F1' is or what F1 'should be about'. I'm not clear how this squares with ignoring the regulations and fundamentally changing the landscape mid-season, possibly as a result of aggressive lobbying from teams that have got it wrong, certainly with the potential to rescue the seasons of those teams who have got it wrong as well as in effect punishing those who have got it right. It strikes me that this position flies into the face of sport and competition more than anyone's.

Next year we have new engine regulations, including a fuel limit. What if next year one of the engine builders gets it wrong and produces an engine that is too fuel-thirsty, and thus its drivers face a choice of cruising to the end of the race or running out. Should in those circumstances the fuel limit for everyone be changed? Of course not. It sounds absurd to even suggest as much. Yet that with this year's tyres is in effect what certain teams now have played for, and got.

Therefore I hope that the changes made for the Canadian Grand Prix and onwards are only tweaks and do not turn out to be a game changer, to coin the modern parlance. If it does appear to help any team that found the previous tyres sub-ideal then it has the potential to cast a shadow over the season; if a driver at one of those teams finishes as champion people will ask if the championship was a deserved one. It'll be a repeat of 2003 which had its very own tyre-gate. Only it'll probably be much worse.

It makes you wonder if the changes therefore are worth it, even with what we were given to watch in Barcelona. I just hope that Pirelli, and everyone else pushing Pirelli for alterations, know what they're doing on this one. It may yet of course be that the new tyres arrive in Canada, the delaminations stop, the number of pit stops reduce a bit and otherwise we carry on as normal with the same pecking order as now. But to achieve that you rather feel that Pirelli must perform a delicate balancing act. Let's hope it doesn't fail in the task, and thus turn what was looking like a good season into a diminished one. But the risk of it doing just that, however inadvertently, is tangible.

Further thoughts on the Spanish Grand Prix

Scuderia's strategic thinking
In among the Pirelli seethe that followed the Spanish Grand Prix an important development from Sunday's proceedings was to a large extent missed. The race was the strongest indication in a fairly long while that Ferrari - finally - looks like it has established a strong championship-winning package. The occasional dropping of clangers so far this year (be they from the team or the driver), most notably at Malaysia and Bahrain, has shrouded things somewhat as has the car's relative shortage of qualifying pace. But in the races in which nothing has gone wrong Fernando Alonso's Ferrari has won two at a canter and was only beaten in the other by Kimi Raikkonen's Lotus stopping one time fewer than it.

Does Ferrari finally have everything right?
Credit: Morio / CC

And the team it appears has many a string to its bow these days. The car looks to have fundamental pace and on all types of track, vitally it is gentle on the Pirelli tyres, it leaps from the starting grid like a scalded cat, Alonso's talents we know about, Felipe Massa seems close to the top of his game and is showing himself perfectly capable of being in the front-running mix and of taking points from the team's rivals, its pit stops are close to the very swiftest out there. And this all was reflected in Alonso's sentiments post the Spanish race: 'After a far from easy qualifying, everything went perfectly, the start, the strategy, pit stops, tyre management.'

Strategy? Yes, strategy. For a while - loosely ever since Ross Brawn left the team - Ferrari's race strategy had often appeared rather deficient compared with its rivals, slightly reactive and ponderous. But in Spain (just as in China) the team's approach can be considered a triumph. Pretty much only Ferrari, certainly among those at the sharp end, realised in advance that a four-stop strategy would be required in the race, and as a consequence was able to enact it without compromise, both cars pushing throughout. Red Bull in contrast aimed for a three-stopper but had to abandon the idea midstream and enact an imperfect version of the four-stopper; by the time the team had resolved to switch Alonso was 13 seconds up the road of Vettel and couldn't be caught. Mercedes for reasons best known to itself stuck obtusely to three-stoppers, and we know how that one turned out.

Ferrari may or may not finally end its title drought this year. But whatever the case it for various reasons looks a more formidable proposition than it has done in some time.

Time to let go
There was briefly a possibility that Alonso's endeavours would all be for nothing however, as after the event he was invited to speak to the race stewards for, get this, picking up a Spanish flag to wave on his slowing down lap.

To an extent I can sympathise with the stewards, as the rule, of not 'receiving an object after the end-of-race signal', exists so not to allow drivers to add to the car's weight after the race and before scrutineering and thus run under the minimum weight undetected. And Alonso's win realistically was never in doubt, a fine or wrist slap was always a much more likely sanction. But you feel that the stewards should have realised quicker that this was transparently not a case of flagrant cheating. And in any case they decided not to punish Alonso 'to be consistent with a previous decision made under similar circumstances', which as Will Buxton pointed out makes it seem rather a pointless regulation in the first place.

More generally, my view is that slowing down lap celebrations in F1 are way too restrained. The most expression we can expect it seems is a tepid tour back to the pits, with only the waving of a hand from the cockpit allowed, and then in parc ferme Herbie Blash ushers the top three drivers up to the podium pronto like an officious hall monitor. One recalls Felipe Massa in Interlagos one year performing a few donuts for the crowd after the race's end. The crowd lapped it up of course, but F1's hardy veterans reflecting the culture instead had an intake of breath, assuming that Massa would be called up to the headmaster for it rather than enjoying it as the spontaneous show of flair that it was. And I compare it all with the celebrations we see almost every race in MotoGP which are always entertaining, sometimes elaborate (I've provided below one of Valentino Rossi's such efforts which I love) as well as what we see in Indycar from the likes of Helio Castroneves. It makes fantastic television, the fans in attendance love it and no one is left in doubt as to what the result means to the victor. There's nothing not to like. If they can do it without problems then why can't F1?



Kimi's latest fan
Everyone loves Kimi Raikkonen. And if the grapevine is to be believed he has acquired yet another admirer in recent times, one Red Bull. A mooted switch there for the 2014 season was a matter that followed Kimi around for much of the Spanish Grand Prix weekend.

Kimi Raikkonen - has an admirer in Red Bull?
Credit: Morio / CC

And it's an idea that the more I look into it the more I surmise good reasons why it could happen. We can fairly safely work on the assumption that Mark Webber isn't going to be with the Bulls in 2014, meaning there'll be a vacancy alongside Vettel. And even as rumours swirl conspicuously no one's denying anything. Indeed, Red Bull boss Dietrich Mateschitz has spoken openly about his admiration for the Finn as well as his suitability for a Red Bull drive. From Kimi's perspective, an Adrian Newey car will always be tempting, as will being at (in effect) the Renault works team in the first year of the new engine rules. While Lotus has done an excellent job in recent times, a Red Bull still seems a better, and better-resourced, bet.

As for Red Bull's perspective it's also clear what would be in it for them: Kimi has established himself as one of the best and most reliable F1 drivers in recent times, and surely in a Red Bull he'd be invaluable both for wins and for points in chasing the constructors' title. Kimi's also a popular personality, and one that you feel fits the Red Bull brand perfectly (and he was sponsored by the company in his rallying sojourn). Of course, a potential impediment would be what Luca Montezemolo called 'two roosters in the same hen house', but among the top drivers surely Kimi represents the lowest risk of all on this front, given his firmly apolitical and equanimous attitude. Plus he and Vettel are friends. Further, while some have claimed that Vettel could veto the move, you'd imagine that Mateschitz would not have talked openly about Kimi's candidacy had Seb not given a move his blessing. And while you'd think ordinarily that Red Bull would want to promote from within (i.e. from Toro Rosso/the young drivers' programme) by the same token the team clearly feels no obligation to do so; indeed the only driver it has ever promoted to the big team via that route is Vettel. Even with Daniel Ricciardo's recent improvement it's hard to argue that either Toro Rosso pilot has made an irrefutable case for the step up. For Antonio Felix da Costa you feel the chance has come too soon. To borrow Sherlock Holmes's maxim: eliminate the impossible and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

But another reason why I think that this could happen is to do with Red Bull itself. Without being pejorative, Red Bull is not in F1 as its raison d'etre as Ferrari or McLaren is, it is there as part of its PR. And even with winning all of the time (or maybe even because of it) it may sense something of a law of diminishing returns from its F1 involvement. What better way to spice it all up than signing Kimi?

Looking again at Rosberg
History is far too important to be left in the past. Weird thing to say I know, but history - and not just in F1 - is a living thing. Subsequent events and discoveries can and often do put a whole new perspective on prior events.

Nico Rosberg - impressing
Credit: Alex Comerford / CC

And so it is with Nico Rosberg. Even though this year he entered year eight of his F1 career he was still viewed by many as something of an enigma. Not in terms of being inconsistent or frustrating, but rather in terms of the question of exactly how good he was never seemed satisfactorily answered. This was down mainly to spending years in underperforming machinery as well as that, aside from in his debut year paired with Mark Webber, it was considered that he never had a team mate providing a clear barometer that Rosberg could be measured against. This he clearly has now following Lewis Hamilton's arrival at Mercedes and, what do you know, Nico's impressing us, doing much better than many (me included) had expected.

Few stable mates can be considered as formidable as Hamilton, but despite bearing the brunt of unreliability misfortune so far Rosberg has on pace given at least as good as he got in the comparison, both in qualifying and the races, while in Spain he left Hamilton far behind. And to return to where we came in, it also all puts a new slant on Rosberg's F1 performances up until now. Most pertinently, it puts a new slant on his match up with Michael Schumacher in the past three years. Most assumed that Rosberg generally having the upper hand (though things got closer over time) was down in large part to Schumi struggling. Perhaps though the latest evidence suggests that Schumacher, and by extension Rosberg, did a lot better than many of us assumed.

Not incredible for Hulk
This season has had its fair share of teams performing below expectations. McLaren has rather quintessentially, Williams has also. But there is another whose season has fallen shy of what was anticipated at the outset, one which has had less attention: namely Sauber.

Nico Hulkenerg - having a frustrating time at Sauber
Credit: Morio / CC

This may sound a bit extreme, after all Sauber has spent most of its existence roughly where it is now, i.e. deep in the midfield. But it's easy to forget that prior to the season's start optimism was high. The team after all had come off a campaign wherein it had claimed four podium finishes, and had in some races looked plainly the quickest thing out there. Indeed apparently by the team's estimation the C31 in 2012 was deserving of even better results than it got, and with the highly-rated Nico Hulkenberg signed in something of a coup (given he'd been variously linked with Ferrari and McLaren) it was felt that everything was in place for the potential to be fulfilled properly in 2013. Reflecting this the Hulk talked in terms of expecting podium finishes, perhaps even seizing a win (his move to Sauber wasn't simply about Ferrari proximity, as some assumed). And even better, the C32 in pre-season testing featured the F1 field's most noticeable design innovation with its narrow sidepods.

But somehow, and just as with McLaren and Williams, all of the hope has evaporated on track and without obvious explanation. And in Barcelona things were as bad as ever: Hulkenberg qualified only fifteenth, and finished there too following a clumsy clash with Jean-Eric Vergne in the pits and a subsequent nose change and stop-go penalty. Podiums, let alone wins, appear but a distant speck on the horizon and Hulkenberg has showed his frustration on occasion, particularly on the radio on his slowing down lap after the Malaysia race. And it's understandable, most pointedly because, while a driver of Hulkenberg's quality will always be on the radar of other teams, with vacancies expected further up the order for next year it's possible that Sauber's struggles will make the Hulk slightly less top of mind among potential suitors than might have otherwise been the case.

Spanish GP Report: Alonso's Home Run

Today there were no mistakes. Today nothing went wrong. Today was a red day: the Ferraris looking the quickest things out there, reminding us that - despite the odd clanger dropped this year - the F138 is a rapid car and will likely remain rapid just about everywhere. Felipe Massa finished a strong third recovering from a grid penalty while triumphing, and triumphing at home, was one Fernando Alonso.

And it was a typical Alonso victory. If you had to construct an identikit win for the Spaniard it'd probably involve early-race aggression, especially on the first lap wherein Alonso passed Lewis Hamilton and Kimi Raikkonen around the outside of turn 3, and then once the lead is seized he holds close to complete command with a swift and consistent drive. And so it was. Only Kimi Raikkonen's strategy of stopping one time fewer threatened to get in his way, but Alonso always had the pace to handle that too. In the end, he prevailed at a canter.

Fernando Alonso was imperious in victory today
Credit: Morio / CC

And further, what does it all mean for the championship fight this season? Barcelona, rightly or wrongly, has a bellwether reputation, being competitive there tending to indicate having a fundamentally good car. Turns like turn 3 and Campsa give the car one heck of an aerodynamic test, and as such in recent times it's been almost impossible to envisage a Ferrari coming out on top around here. Today the Scuderia swept the board.

Alonso remains 17 points off the table top, still harmed by Malaysia and Bahrain where he didn't pick up many (or any) points. Yet today's results don't half spice up the Vettel-Raikkonen-Alonso championship fight, each being drawn closer to the others.

Barcelona Qualifying: Hey Ho Silver

It's now happened in the last three rounds. But it still seems rare enough to be considered a surprise. Yes, it'll again be the colour silver at the front of tomorrow's starting grid, and this time it'll be silver in one and two. Mercedes today locked out the front row for the Spanish Grand Prix.

And also against expectations it is Nico Rosberg who is ahead of the two. Just as with his team's efforts, even though it's his second pole on the spin him coming out on top of his intra-team conflict with the mighty Lewis Hamilton also seems unexpected. But it's further evidence that after years of confusion on the matter Nico might well be all that after all. Perhaps we should try to start to get used to it.

Nico Rosberg takes pole - not so much of a surprise
Credit: Morio / CC

And yet, it still all feels rather like F1's equivalent of the warm up act. The expectation tomorrow is that the Mercs will clear the stage before too long to allow the star turns of Sebastian Vettel, Kimi Raikkonen and Fernando Alonso to appear for the headline act. That's certainly what the evidence of Bahrain suggests where Rosberg started on pole (though Hamilton's trajectory in that race was upward), and the silver cars' race simulation runs in Friday practice were not encouraging. Nico further seemed to admit after qualifying that he expects the same himself, stating that 'the race will be a whole different thing'. The main trouble is that the thing that makes them good in qualifying, ability to generate heat in their tyres quickly, particularly in the rears, tends to be a vice over a race stint.

Barcelona Preview: End of the Phoney War

The F1 calendar is rather bloated these days, with 19 races on it; thus as we stand before round five we've barely reached the quarter distance point. And yet the lap times in the Spanish Grand Prix meeting this weekend, the first European round of the year, should go a long way to framing the holistic story of the 2013 World Championship.

No, I'm not being melodramatic. Not entirely anyway. The start of the European season has in recent times felt a lot like the end of the Phoney War. It is the scene of one of the campaign's most pivotal points for just about the entire paddock; everyone will roll up armed with a package of technical upgrades in the hope of making a giant stride forward. And in the European season the itinerary begins to taken a helter skelter quality, if you're not on the pace here then the probability is that several more races will pass by the time you're able to sort it (that's if you're able to sort it at all of course). And by that time your fate in the championship tables could be largely set.

F1 is back in familiar surroundings for a pivotal weekend
Credit: Jose Mª Izquierdo Galiot / CC

And that the Phoney War ends at the Montmelo circuit near Barcelona compounds this; the track has long been considered as a bellwether. It has a variety of corners, gives the car a full aerodynamic workout and that some of the turns are long means that it's not the sort of place that a fundamentally underperforming car can be hustled around with great success (this in part explains its popularity as a test venue). Around here the car must do the work. And this year it is all even more acute than usual: with major technical changes awaiting in 2014 every team faces a conundrum of just how much resource in 2013 is put towards next year's car. And how competitive they are now will form a major part of that decision. No one will win the world championship this weekend, but it will likely go a long way in causing many teams to in effect thrown in the towel. Already.

Looking back: Haas Lola - a study in what might have been

If, if, if. Life is full of them. Counterfactuals. What might have been. How things just might have turned out differently had x, y or z not, or had, happened. And F1 is especially laden with this sort of thing, as is befitting a sport where the distinction between success and failure has a particularly knife-edge quality. To coin the saying, 'F1' is 'if' spelled backwards.

And while we're on the subject of the things that lay alongside actuality, imagine that you could select any two technical brains for your very own F1 'dream team'. Ross Brawn and Adrian Newey are the two that many of us would pick. And why not? They've been (with Rory Byrne) F1's technical stars on the modern age, with only four on the last 21 constructors' champions' cars not having involvement from one or other of them. But while their being brought together to produce a car sounds strictly like it is from the realms of fantasy, it actually very nearly happened, before the plug was unceremoniously pulled on the squad they were part of. The team in question is Haas Lola, the team that ever so fleetingly was F1's next big thing.

'Who?' you might be forgiven was asking, as while both the Haas and Lola names are famous in motorsport more widely neither is central in F1 folklore. But in 1985 it was a team apparently poised to have the same impact on F1 as a bowling ball has on a set of pins. In the event however the team lasted but a single full season, 1986, and in that its cars were usually nowhere near the front. Six points were won via attrition, but that was its lot.

The Haas Lola THL1
Credit: Falcadore / CC

Of course, F1's not exactly short of teams arriving amid much fanfare only for it all to fizzle out when it meets the cold wind of bracing on-track reality. One can think of March, BAR, Caterham/Lotus and others, and thus Haas Lola seems just one example on a rather lengthy and inauspicious list (indeed, some wags later quipped that BAR stood for 'Beatrice Again Racing', in homage to the Haas Lola's chief sponsor). Yet such apparent potential at Team Haas, as the team was otherwise known, being squandered is worthy of its own investigation of what exactly went wrong.

Pirellis, passes and politics: Thoughts on F1 in 2013

F1 is never calm for long. Never totally at ease with itself. And even if it does threaten to go that way it seems to feel obliged to find some aggravation from somewhere. Perhaps they like aggravation; maybe not having it makes them feel exposed somehow.

There are lots of things that are good about F1 right now, on the face of it at least. A close, competitive field. Races which contain a lot of action. One of the best driver line ups ever. Talk of breakaways, and of blocking the rule changes that await in 2014, have receded. But obviously this situation was unsatisfactory. Someone, somewhere had to stir the pot.

And so it has been in early 2013. The main issue has been around the dark matter and equally dark arts of the Pirelli tyres. It seems that some have noticed that the rubber, as Pirelli is deliberately engineering degradation in, doesn't allow drivers to push all the time. Red Bull team principal Christian Horner for one has bemoaned that the drivers don't like 'cruising at 70 per cent for a large percentage of the race', with Mark Webber claiming similarly that F1 is 'a little bit WWF at the moment' (get with it Mark, it's WWE these days).

Once again, there has been
much debate over the Pirelli tyres
Credit: Rich Jones / CC

It is however difficult to see what the fuss is about in a sense, or at the very least why the fuss is taking place now. While the tyres are revised for this year at the topline level they're not much different to those in Pirelli's previous two years as an F1 supplier (as Kimi Raikkonen noted) and, as well as this, in F1 drivers almost never have been able to push at 100% for 100% of the time (as Kimi also noted). Further, the high tide water mark of Turkey 2011 in Pirelli's early days, where it was four stoppers pretty much all round, hasn't been matched in 2013 and the races generally don't seem more variable than those of early 2011 or early 2012. And while the details can be argued (for example, this year's soft tyre was clearly unsuitable for the China track on that particular race day) surely the broad approach is worth supporting. Those who hark back to the 'good old days' when tyres hardly degraded are either suffering from selective memory or else enjoy Sunday afternoons that are akin to watching paint dry. Then, races (and I use that term advisedly) were usually soporific; sometimes farcical.

Further thoughts on the Bahrain Grand Prix

Here comes Bahrain again
And thus F1 has endured its second weekend in Bahrain since the Arab Spring, and its second which afterwards private exhalations of relief may be had that the event just about went off without problems. Admittedly, there appeared a slightly lower level of background issues for the F1 bubble this time compared with what there was last year: no protesters died in the course of the weekend (as far as we know), and no members of the F1 fraternity were caught up in clashes as they were then.

Bahrain Grand Prix - a focus for protesters
Credit: Hamel Alrayeh / CC

And yet I'm no nearer to understanding why exactly the sport's decision-makers think going to Bahrain right now is a good idea. Yes, I'm aware that there are (reportedly) 50 million reasons for the fraternity to turn up, and Bernie/CVC are conspicuously wont to follow the money. But even still I cannot fathom why anyone at the top of the sport thinks that this credit outweighs the rather obvious debit. The debit being that F1 is being used as a country PR exercise by a regime (and by extension a PR exercise for the regime itself) at the same time that the regime has a criticised human rights record and faces daily protests and unrest from its citizens demanding democracy and reform (for whom the F1 race is a clear focus of discontent, unsurprising given the regime's closeness to the event and desire to derive prestige from it). And this unrest is prone to descend into violence from both sides. At best the sport appears uncaring, at worst that it's siding with oppression. And the broad perception was that matters in Bahrain hadn't moved on much since F1's last visit 12 months ago.

As outlined on this site before the race, it represents a toxic mix of two of the sport's most notorious vices: taking short term financial gain in return for longer term and less immediately tangible pain, as well as a disregard for how it's viewed more widely and why this is important. The sport relies on the world around it in a number of ways, most notably that's where it gets its fans from. It's also where it gets its sponsorship and technical involvement, and all three of these groups have plenty of options of where to invest their time and money. F1 is inviting peril by disregarding this.