Britain F1

When I started jotting down some thoughts about each of the F1 races I didn’t think any of my ramblings would be worth referring back to, but maybe I was wrong.

One of my early thoughts was triggered by what I saw as a degree of unpredictability in the forthcoming season. For me, at least, the first few results didn’t show any dominance, and halfway through the season it seems that everything is far from predictable, and we have four drivers with almost the same points tally. What they had after the last race means nothing, as does the current tally, as the only total that will eventually matter is the one arrived after the last race.

After the last race, I also mentioned something that seemed to be absent, and that was the ability that Schumacher had demonstrated, when he and his Ferrari could take an apparently poor start in bad conditions, and turn it into a crushing race victory. Well, I have to eat my words again, as Hamilton and McLaren took a 4th on the starting grid, and a race that went in and out of the rain, and converted those two potential race losers into a win that made the rest of the grid look as if they had stopped somewhere for a tea-break.

There’s no point in dismissing that as a one-off either. Developments and strategies change from race to race, as do track conditions and even the driver’s attitude - and the current attack on Hamilton by the scumbags of the press (who remembers that there once used to be a phrase “Gentlemen of the press” in the dim and distant past?) - which means that once a team sees something work, and work well, they’ll do whatever they can to capitalise on it.

At this stage, I still wouldn’t want to bet a penny of my own hard-earned on any given outcome.

Well, maybe that Ferrari will walk off with the constructor’s trophy, that’s probably reasonably safe.

France F1

The fiasco that took place at the F1 race held in France this year reminded of a number of thoughts from the past.

Senna and Schumacher are considered to be great drivers, but to be perfectly frank, while they may have some skill and been able to pair themselves with a car provider that maximised their skills, after the French race I was left wondering if they would have been such great and successful drivers if they were on the track today, and subject to the application of the governing body’s rules and regulations in the same way as, for example, Lewis Hamilton.

In their day, and by their own admission at later interviews, both Schumacher and Senna forced their way to the podium at the expense of other, by little more than bullying, and moves that one would imagine would see them penalised by stop/go penalties, or black-flagging nowadays. Today, we have driver’s accusing one another of dangerous driving, and putting lives at risk, yet in the days of Senna and Schumacher it seems that driving another car of road, or even simply crashing into them to ensure they couldn’t score any points in a race was acceptable, and even admitted after the event.

While I can see the idea behind the regulations that shove drivers back down the grid if engines and gearboxes are changed ahead of schedule, does this nonsense really save all that much cash given the size of an F1 budget, and the amount drivers can extort from the teams for deigning to drive for them? The BTCC (British Touring Car Championship) is now pointless, as “success ballast” as added to shove any winners to the back of the grid, and the any hope of watching any trends develop is wiped out by grid reversals and handicapping dependent on the type of engine/fuel/drive used by the car. In the “good old days”, the various categories developed their own groups on the track and had to weave through one another. Now the pack is just an amorphous mass circulating the track, and it’s too much hard work trying to work out which is which.

You can’t help but feel that we’re no longer watching the team/driver racing and competing fro the trophy/title, but watching to see who has the best mind working away in a back room with a spreadsheet, and deciding the whole outcome in advance by fiddling with the numbers and deciding everything in advance.

Canada F1

Just noticed that these F1 thoughts are the only thing bringing me back here at the moment - that’s what happens when you get diverted elsewhere. Although it’s fair to say the the WP service/servers seem to have become very slow, and the media side has become all but useless since they revised it. Every time I try to upload and insert an image, the thing just stop dead after saving the image, and I have to go and find out the image address manually, and then insert it by hand, so it all just takes too long now.

There’s not a lot to say about Canada.

While one might anticipate anything but what was expected to happen to actually happen, with “that wall” playing a big part if anyone makes the slightest slip, the crashes that took the leaders out was one that very few might have predicted.

I do seem to be saying the same thing more often, and that’s that the current result is a bit of a break from the expected norm, and well get back to that norm next time out, but it looks as if I’m going to be saying it a few more times if things carry on after the present pattern. Or will things suddenly slot into the “expected” format all of a sudden, and we’ll see things go something more along (at least partially) predictable lines?

I don’t bet, so I’m not even going to try and answer that one, just keep watching, and see if there are any more surprises left in the box.

Monaco, F1

It’s all feely ever so slightly spooky this week, after my ramblings following Turkey’s race.

To recap, I’d ventured to compare McLaren and Hamilton with Ferrari and Schumacher, noting that the Ferrari combination seemed to be able to pull victory from defeat in a way that, in Turkey at least, the McLaren combination couldn’t emulate.

Of course, no sooner do I commit myself to such an observation, than I have it thrown back at me. Not only did Monaco see McLaren and Hamilton pull off such a victory (which, had it been Ferrari and Schumacher would have had endless streams of “Yet again, Ferrari and Schumacher have wiped the floor yada yada yada…” ) they really did snatch victory from the jaws of defeat as the winning strategy came after a slip in the wet that could easily have put both car and driver into retiral. They got very little praise, I think, for something that would have netter Ferrari endless stories in the pub about a great victory, and unlike criticism of Hamilton for slipping, Schumacher would have had tales of his “great skill” in minimising the damage to a mere blown tyre when the nasty wet road made his car slide away from under him - such the power of godliness.

Whether it’s down to this year’s rule changes, the teams, car design, or drivers, this year’s conclusion is anything but a foregone conclusion, and if we carry on as we are, things could be close all the way to the end, and hopefully not because some useless driver decides to do whatever he can to engineer a win for himself at everyone else’s expense.

Turkey F1

Funny how a habit can start, instead of forgetting about Turkey, because it wasn’t all that notable I keep thinking about.

The race was a return to what might be expected form, to me at least, and the front-runners went to the front - and stayed there. What was notable though was the example of how not only the driver, but all the contributions can come together to, perhaps not necessarily win the the race, but to lose it. Without delving into the minutiae of the day, choice of tyre compound usage order, two or three stop strategy, efficiency of pit-stop, traffic on rejoining, weather vs car setup, all are relevent, and can negate the hottest of laps by the driver, combining to put him just a few seconds too far back to make up front and pass the next car. There’s no car and driver combination on the track that pull that trick at the moment, there may be later, but it a trick that Ferrari and Schumacher could pull off in the past, coming from what appeared to nowhere and clinching a win.

Possibly more relevant to the future is the start of the disappearance of the lesser teams, and the looming arrival of the policy whereby teams will not be able to go and buy a car from one of the original manufacturing teams. The decision is being looked and reviewed by the decision makers, and may be reversed or modified, but if not, then it will ramp up the cost of joining the exclusive F1 club further still, even though they are making moves to cut costs by requiring engines and gearboxes to last for more than one race, and imposing performance and stress maximums by such things as limiting engine control systems, revs to 19,000 plus the tyre rules.

It’s still far from cheap, and the drivers are still walking away with far too much of the team’s money. They make millions off track, so should really be paying for the privilege of driving, and maybe even financing the teams, not the other way round.

Oops, and I wasn’t going to waffle much.

Labour governments sneaks in secret taxes

Since I usually manage to avoid using words like scumbags, or making overtly political remarks like ’sneaky Labour government’, I’ll avoid the temptation to use them in this post and start a bad habit, and just direct readers to some articles in the Times Online, which give details of some taxes that the incumbent government and its nice minister have failed to announce in a loud, clear, and distinct voice, but which will be noticed by most who have an older, larger vehicle on the road.

Apparently you need not worry about the increased costs and lossed (depreciation) that has eroded the value of your vehicle, because you can dispose of it (ignoring the loss on the sale) and replace it with a nice, shiney new one that doesn’t suffer from the same costs.

Ah, the magical logic of politicians that don’t have to worry about any costs of living, like the peasants they ‘represent’, and act on behalf of…

Road-tax hike makes thousands of family cars almost worthless

Secret tax adds £200 to cost of running family cars

Threat of fuel protests returns as cost of petrol hits £5 a gallon

Time to fire the ASA

After reading an article that listed  the Top 10 most controversial ads, I’m even more convinced in my belief that the Advertising Standards Authority ranks amongst the most useless of organisations, and is chaired by a bunch of old women with nothing better to do, and no grasp of reality.

The top complaint (774 complaints) was about anti-smoking ad, of which we are told: “Many of those who complained said the adverts were offensive, frightening and distressing. The largest group of complaints related to the poster ads and the effect they could have on children.”

That sounds to me like the very reasons for creating and showing the ads, it was (or would have done) what it was supposed to do if the old women at the ASA hadn’t been around to interfere, and they proved they have no grasp of reality, when they upheld the complaint instead of laughing it out of the room.

There’s a time for “glove’s on” and there’s a time for “glove’s off”, and this was clearly  a time for “off”!

2. TRIDENT GUM - 519 COMPLAINTS

Upheld on basis of unintentionally offending a significant minority.

3. RUSTLERS - 219 COMPLAINTS

Partly Upheld as it was shown during a children’s film.

4. MFI - 217 COMPLAINTS

Upheld for showing actual domestic violence.

5. QUORN - 181 COMPLAINTS

Not upheld.

6. COCA COLA GREAT BRITAIN - 180 COMPLAINTS

Not upheld.

7. BRITISH HEART FOUNDATION - 122 COMPLAINTS

Not upheld.

8. JOHN WYETH & BROTHER LTD - SMA NUTRITION - 109 COMPLAINTS

Not upheld.

9. PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS (PETA) - 68 COMPLAINTS

Not upheld.

10. NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD - THE SUN - 56 COMPLAINTS

Not upheld.

I’m not wasting time repeating the finding, you can read the original article for that, but look at the spread of numbers: 774 for the top item, down to 56 for number 10.

Given the population of the UK, isn’t it ridiculous that the old women at the ASA can influence ads, with only a literal handful of complaints? And just who are the complainers, individuals with nothing better to do than watch adverts (hell, there’s so many now I feel I’m having to work hard to avoid them) or is it groups with agenda’s, and reasons to make these complaints and have the ads pulled?

As I intimated at the start, the ASA’s little more than a joke, with no real purpose and doing nothing to maintain any sort of standards in advertising.

Witness the dreadful USwitch advert that typecast a black Gospel choir with a a bunch of black people miming (badly) to the words - I can’t believe that rubbish hadn’t generated more complaints than the above.

Then there’s the mobile phone and texting adverts that areclearly little more then procurement services for prostitution or sexual services. Near naked teenage girls filmed in extreme close-up with husky voice-overs encouraging the viewer to text and chat and meet etc etc, or to receive videos. If you are an insomniac, then you get bombarded with this  trash all night. Item 10 above, the Sun ad, is laughable by comparison.

As for standards, if the ASA was really maintaining any sort of standards within the industry then they’d do something about the sponsor tags that are repeated incessantly between the programme breaks and the actual adverts. On long programmes or films, these are little short of brainwashing, being repeated 12 or more times in a single hour when a particularly popular programme is broadcast.

The ASA should do a proper job, or shut its doors and stop being paid to do very little of any value.

Spain F1

Straight off at 150 mph, 26 G, and the result is a bump on the head and maybe concussion - not a lot one can really say about that crash.

Well, since F1 is often quoted as the source of innovation for the cars that you and I drive on the road, perhaps one might ask when we can have some F1 safety features please. Cars may be much improved on the simple tin boxes they were (not too many years ago, unless you were buying top end luxury marques), but they’re still a life-lottery if you’re accident doesn’t happen to match one of the few particular impact types that they are designed to pass for official testing purposes and certification. While these are not to be sneezed at, and are both valuable and worthwhile, the average person doesn’t realise that accidents that happen outwith those conditions might gain no benefit from these safety features, and might even be made worse by them. I’m not knocking them, just observing that there’s still plenty to be done, and to beware complacency.

As for the race, well, all I can think of is noting that the last one shook up what might have been termed as the ‘expected’ results, while this one has seem something of a return something that might be regarded as ‘expectations’.

Coming races will become more interesting as the various embarrassingly silly aerodynamic aids are discarded, and the more sensible developments start to appear.

Bahrain F1

I can’t be bothered with the silliness that is floating around the edges of F1 and members of its governing bodies. Trial by the media and the intrusion of the press/media on people’s private lives has become a cancer on what was once the valuable “Freedom of The Press”, now used as something to allow papers and adverts to be sold, nothing else. The moguls in charge should have video cameras super-glued to their heads, and connected live to the internet 24/7, and let us see how squeaky-clean and virgin-white they are.

The race was more interesting that most probably give it credit for. Although there were a few notable incidents (one particular ‘brake test’ comes to mind), and we are very early in the season, the progress and end result were interesting, in so far as they were so vastly different from what we have seen so far.

Far from being a procession, or predictable, things were all over the place, and (neglecting some consistency from Ferrari) there was no clear pattern in the outcome.

The next outing will be intriguing. Will it be the same again, a odd mixture of final placings? Or will it return to what we saw as the season opened?

I have no idea, and wouldn’t even try to predict anything at this stage, but I will be watching closely to see if any pattern emerges in the result.

F1 on ITV - advertsing gone daft

F1 on ITV has to rank as the one of the worst slaves to advertisers, possibly coming second only to all the crime/drama programmes ruined by the endless AXA sponsor tags that ITV sold its soul to.

Qualifying has been mode boring enough by the change to this daft multi-session format produced to supposedly make it more ‘interesting’ (for which read ’short sessions to allow adverts to be jammed in without having to find a gap in all that inconvenient qualifying stuff that is getting in the way of the ad breaks’), and what used to be a programme that took little more than the old ‘Qualifying Hour’ has now grown into a 2 hour plus grind of  tittle tattle about the drivers, teams, managers, and the sport (and of course, the ad-breaks).

Selling out to money-mad Sony as sponsors was never going to be good, and we now have the pleasure of eac ad-break being punctuated with a plug at each end for ITV, F1, some driver’s face, Sony, and some crappy piece of music they’ve chosen, which appropriately features the word ‘Madness’ in its interminably repeated showings.

The programme segments aren’t even worth staying still long enough to watch in some cases. I made the mistake of getting up to investigate a noise at my door just as one part of the qualifying programmed began after the blasted Sony music - I only had to wander to the door, check there was nobody there, or anything suspicious happening, and wander back to my seat - I don’t own a mansion, but in the time it took to do that, when I sat down again, all I was treated to was the blasted Sony ‘Madness’ score yet again, and another batch of adverts.

Why bother squeezing in a programme section of a minute or two? Just make it all adverts and at least we’d know we had time to go make tea or coffee, or write War & Peace, while the ads were on!