In the wake of the final ruling on the Renault crash-gate scandal, the decision to not exclude Renault from the championship has been described as  “pathetic and disgraceful.”

As a counterpoint consider this. When looking strictly at the evidence that was considered, the Renault scandal is isolated to three individuals plus one unnamed witness. The witness and one of the individuals (Piquet) were given immunity for testifying. The other two (Briatore and Symonds) were excluded from the championship. I think everyone agrees that the penalties applied to Briatore and Symonds are very strong. The rest of the organization did not knowingly participate in the illegal activity although they benefited. For that, they must pay an undisclosed sum of money, their reputations have been tarnished, and sponsors have left the team early.

Should all these other people in the organization, who at the time had no idea of the deception being carried out by just three individuals, be required to pay the ultimate price (professionally speaking) for this? Just how is the FIA considered “pathetic” when they chose to not apply an extremely harsh penalty to innocent players in this scandal?

It can be argued, pretty strongly in my mind, that the race crew and workers at the Renault F1 factory are innocent in the crash-gate scandal. If the team were excluded, it would likely lead to the team shutting down its F1 operations and laying off staff therefore impacting their families though the loss of job income. How is this considered justice? How is sparing them considered “pathetic”?

When it is possible to isolate illegal activity to specific individuals, the just thing to do is severely punish the individuals. When it is possible to identify those who are innocent, although they may have unwittingly benefitted from the devious act, the just thing to do is apply penalties in a way that ultimately spares them. In balance, the FIA’s decision to not exclude Renault is the correct one.

In the furor over the race fixing allegations involving Nelson Piquet Jr. and Renault, some attention has turned to teammate Fernando Alonso. The argument is that Alonso should voluntarily give up his trophy and prize money for winning the race and/or be removed from the final race results. The basis of this argument is that Alonso’s race strategy was not valid and could only be employed if he somehow was involved in the race-fixing strategy.

Once again common sense is ignored in the “scorched Earth” quest to place blame and demand punishment for dirty deeds done in F1.

Two facts debunk the populist argument against Alonso. First, the Renault had the pace of a potential race-winner. Second, the lightly-fueled, early pit sequence employed by Renault for Alonso was in fact a valid strategy.

Alonso’s lowly 15th place starting spot was not reflective of his true pace on the weekend. In fact, Alonso led P2 (1:45.654) and P3 (1:44.506), and he was 6th fastest in Q1 (1:44.971). Only a mechanical failure in Q2 prevented Alonso from moving on to the 10-car shootout for the pole. I’m not arguing that Alonso had the fastest car, but there is no doubt that he at least had the pace to legitimately contend for victory on a street circuit.

As a result of his lowly starting position, Renault and Alonso formulated an aggressive low fuel, early first pit stop strategy. I am not going to argue about the specific lap that Alonso came in, which was Lap 12. Whether or not this was intentional in anticipation of Piquet’s crash is the subject for investigators. However, what is important to recognize is that on street circuits, such an aggressive pit strategy, like the one employed by Renault and Alonso, is a valid one.

Anyone familiar with American street circuit racing knows that off-sequence pit strategies are commonly employed. The reasons are twofold. If the driver is fast enough, off-sequence pitting increases the likelihood of that driver finding clear track in which to run fast laps. Early in the race, the field is still bunched together. By starting the race lighter than those immediately ahead, the hope is that the driver will be able to make up several places at the start before coming in for the first stop. After the pit stop, the driver will be last in the field but will have clear track ahead in which to run all-out race laps. By the time the rest of the field makes their pit stops, the driver should be much further up in the order than at the start.

The second component of the early pit strategy is that the team is gambling for a caution period that favors their driver who is off sequence from the rest of the field. This component is well known since this is exactly how events played out in Singapore. If not for subterfuge, Alonso was very lucky. But he wasn’t the first driver to win a race due to the timing of the safety car. And strategy alone is far from enough evidence to implicate Alonso in F1’s latest scandal.

Earlier today, the FIA and FOTA reached an agreement that ensures the best teams and drivers will remain in F1, while budgets will be greatly reduced within two years (to early ’90s levels) and technical support will be provided to the three new teams joining the grid next season. FIA president Max Mosley will not run for reelection in October.

In short, all parties got what they wanted…

It became crystal clear that the FOTA breakaway series was no empty threat. The eight FOTA teams had the funding, organization, and fan following to be successful. The FIA and FOTA compromised for the good of the sport, and we, the fans, should all be thankful that sanity prevailed.

Thoughts about the FOTA breakaway championship that was announced on Thursday…

I am convinced that development of this series is further along than it may appear. FOTA is comprised of multinational teams and manufacturers that are accustomed to long development projects that require a great deal of coordination among many contributing parties. FOTA would have been foolish to announce a new series at the exact time they would be starting from ground zero. Certainly, much of the groundwork for this new series has likely already been completed prior to the Thursday announcement.

Having myself been around to witness the “civil war” in America between CART/Champ Car and the Indy Racing League, there are very important differences between the two scenarios. In America, the IRL possesed the two key aces in the game: a huge financial warchest in the Hulman family fortune, and the biggest asset in American open wheel racing in the Indianapolis 500. These two resources meant that the IRL was built to win a war of attrition, which is what the American open wheel war eventually became.

Recall, that the CART series was branded the “Indy Car World Series,” and the funding infrastructure was based on participation in the Indy 500, which of course, was under the control of the IRL. Most teams spent a disproportionate amount of their operating budget on that one race, the Indy 500. Following the split, funding began to disappear as years went by without participation at Indy. The manufacturers (except Ford) and the big name teams (except Newman/Haas/Lanigan) eventually “defected” from CART to the IRL. Financially, it made sense in order to survive and thrive.

If F1, the fundamentals are different. The one race that may have more importance that any other on the calendar is Monaco. And there have already been suggestions from the race promoter that the event will not take place if Ferrari were not present. Important host countries have already been dropped from F1 such as France, Canada, and the United States. The site of the very first F1 World Championship event in 1950, Silverstone, England, is set to be dropped as the host of the British GP beginning next year. Unlike in America, where Indy continued to build on its rich history, F1 is currently disposing of its history in favor of moving races to the highest bidding countries that have little or no heritage in F1.

Instead, tracks that join a FOTA series would actually benefit. In all likelihood, sanctioning fees will be dramatically reduced by FOTA compared to F1. The revenue share should be more advantageous for the tracks as well. So would the threat of never being able to host an F1 event in the future deter these venues from joining a FOTA series? I doubt it. Not if FOTA would offer tracks better financial outcomes compared to F1.

Another important factor, ironically enough, is that FOTA exists because manufacturers derive benefits from racing for marketing reasons. This was a critical factor in the FIA’s campaign to make F1 less reliant on manufacturer participation and more friendly to teams like Williams, that exist solely for the purpose of racing. The reasoning by the FIA was that once the return on investment no longer made sense, manufacturers would feel free to leave the sport. What the FIA did not consider was that a core of manufacturers were comitted to participating in racing for the long term.

When these above mentioned factors are combined with the fact that FOTA controlls the big name teams and drivers of the sport, the sum of the parts suggest that the money train will end up leaving F1 and following FOTA, not the reverse. And like in America, it will be the money situation that determines which series will prevail. In this case, that means FOTA. Either there will be a new series that will overtake F1, or a radical change will soon occur in the FIA that will swing the balance of power to the teams.

We at GrandPrixDB certainly don’t consider ourselves to be a Red Bull motorsports blog. So it’s merely a coincidence that most of our recent posts have been written about either Red Bull Racing or Scuderia Toro Rosso.

Before the season started there was much deliberation amongst our contributors about the season’s prospects of Sebastian Vettel. He could have ended up on our prediction as high as champion or as low as out of the top 6. Of course, clinging to the past prevailed and Vettel was left out, while members of the old guard such as drivers from Ferrari, McLaren, and BMW Sauber were included.

While it seemed impossible that a team like BMW Sauber, which sacrificed a genuine opportunity to win both World Championships in ‘08, who put extra effort into designing its ‘09 challenger, could fall so far short of the mark. At least in the first few races of the new season, this is exactly what has happened.

As far as Red Bull, they have never been anything close to contenders. But the lesson is that you should never underestimate genius. And in the case of Red Bull, there are two: driver Vettel and chief technical officer Adrian Newey.

There is no denying Newey’s genius. His successes at Williams and McLaren were characterized by innovation and attention to design detail. There were also failures, most notably the McLaren MP4-18, but this season Newey has gotten it right. His unique approach to the sweeping new technical regulations has resulted in a chassis that is different and innovative without relying on controversial interpretations of the letter of the law.

Many consider the pullrod design of the rear suspension to be a major obstacle in implementing the “trick” diffuser design that is featured on the Brawn, Toyota, and Williams. However, that is not the way the mind of Newey works. Certainly there is no reason to panic. Instead, he has been handed an opportunity to upgrade an already fast machine, maybe the fastest in the field at the moment. He may not be able to design a new diffuser exactly the way his rivals have, but he will certainly be able to figure out how to exploit this newly endorsed interpretation of the regulations.

And right now in F1, there is no driver who is better at getting the most out of Newey’s creations as Vettel. He handles oversteer with a lack of drama and is devastatingly effective at getting in a golden lap in qualifying. Yet, he has also shown the ability to take it easy on equipment and tires when necessary.

The notable exception of course was at the season-opening Australian GP. We have already made our argument that Vettel’s penalty was deserved. And as the season evolves, it becomes more evident that Vettel’s mistake might cost him. Consider that if he were sensible and settled for 3rd place, not only would he have 6 additional points, but he also would have avoided the 10-spot grid penalty assessed for the Malaysian GP. He certainly had potential for a high finish and more points in Malaysia. Vettel could have been in a position to take the Championship lead this weekend in Bahrain.

Yet, the past is the past, and Vettel is showing that even these lost opportunities are not a deterrent to his progress this season. In yesterday’s qualifying session, it was Vettel who appeared to be holding back by running a heavier fuel load than the rest of the top contenders. There is no reason, other than reliability of the equipment, to think that Vettel will not be able to convert his 3rd starting spot into another victory. And if he does so, suddenly it will be Jenson Button and Brawn who will be on the defensive, looking to preserve as many points as possible on each race weekend. And since the Brawn already has the advanced diffuser design, it seems there is less potential for improvement compared to the Red Bull.

There may be no stopping Vettel and Red Bull in ‘09.

GrandPrixDB sides with the FIA in handing out a 10-spot grid penalty in the upcoming Malaysian GP to Sebastian Vettel for his role in the late race incident with Robert Kubica at the 2009 Australian GP. You can read our analysis here.

Although many observers disagree with the ruling, Vettel could have, and should have, avoided the incident. The fact is that the dramatic speed discrepancy between the two cars was due to Vettel’s tires going off and Kubica’s natural pace at the time. Kubica did not use any artificial means to gain speed such as cutting a chicane or otherwise using a non-racing part of the circuit. By simply braking a meter earlier, Vettel could have avoided the entire mess.

Ultimately, Vettel was not fighting for position because in reality he had no means in which to fight off Kubica. And he knew it. His tires were completely spent and there were too many laps left in the race (three). As I mentioned in my previous post, the only way Vettel could prevent Kubica from passing would be to take him out.

However, I disagree with Eddie Jordan’s assertion that Vettel apologizing to Mario Thiesson afterwards is a sign of weakness. The racing world has become accustomed to the Michael Shumachers and Lewis Hamiltons, who act with impunity and see no reason to offer a simple apology for an admitted mistake in the heat of battle. The fact is Vettel has an irrepressible spirit and we all know he will come back with maximum effort in Malaysia and beyond.

You’re wrong Eddie. Vettel’s ability to admit a mistake and take responsibility in a mature manner is more a sign of strength than weakness. Vettel showed his class and true self confidence in this act of pure sportsmanship.

Sebastian Vettel is a brilliant driver. Even at just 21 years of age he clearly has what it takes to one day become World Champion. However, his incident in the closing stages of the 2009 Australian GP with Robert Kubica as both were fighting for second place was ultimately Vettel’s doing.

Yes, technically speaking both drivers were at fault. Kubica could have waited to make a later pass, or given Vettel more room in the corner. Vettel could have, and should have, given up the corner.

The speed differential was completely due to the tire situation. Vettel was on the softer compound and his tires were through with their golden laps. He was a sitting duck. Kubica ran the ideal strategy by qualifying light and running the soft tires in a short first stint. This allowed him to run the medium compound tires in the critical last stint and he was clearly faster by this point.

From the perspective of Vettel, when a driver has a car that is so many kilometers per hour slower than a passing car, the right thing to do is give up the corner to the faster car. There were still three laps to go and the only way the slower Vettel could prevent Kubica from eventually overtaking was to take him out.

The situation would have been different had they been on the last lap. Then it is every driver for themselves. However in this case, there were three laps remaining and Kubica was going to make every effort to take the fight to race leader, Jenson Button. Even if things had worked out with Vettel, chances are that Kubica would not have caught Button. But recognize this. When the soft compound tires went off, they went off in a big way to the tune of 3-6 seconds per lap. It was not inconceivable that Button’s tires may have gone off and Kubica, who was the fastest of the leading cars at the time, could have had a last second attempt to snatch the race lead. The key was to get by Vettel as quickly as possible, which meant taking the chance as soon as the opportunity presented itself.

For Vettel the end result is a DNF and no points. Judging by the way his race went up to the point of the accident, these lost points might be very critical at the end of the year. Although he was no match for Button, he was not too far away either. Vettel was the class of the “best of the rest” behind the Brawn GP cars. Clearly, Adrian Newey has designed a very good chassis, and it is reasonable to expect the Red Bull to get even better as the year goes on. A Championship push would not be out of the question. As we have seen in the last two seasons, every single point is valuable. And if Vettel finds that he is a handful of points short in the end… I guess we can all say, “What if?”

For Kubica his move was, in vernacular terms, all about street cred. He was clearly committed to closing out the race with every last nanosecond of pace left in his car. And any sliver of opportunity to take an upset victory over the Brawn cars (how ironic is that statement!) was not going to be given up without a fight. Both he and Vettel had equal amounts to lose. Now Vettel and everyone else will know that in similar circumstances, they will either need to be willing to take a DNF or simply give up on a losing battle.

Foolish you might say? Well consider what happened last year in the Japanese GP when Sebastien Bourdais on pit exit failed to give up a corner to the flying Felipe Massa. It was Bourdais who ended up getting penalized. The precedent set by the FIA is that in battles for position, if one car is clearly faster than the other at the point of contact, any resulting penalties will be given to the slower car.

Grand Prix DB provides each driver’s statistical rating prior to the start of the race. It is a moving numerical ranking of possible long run future success. The highest ranked driver does not necessarily have the best chance to win the upcoming race, but is in the strongest position to have the best overall results over the long term. As a driver experiences more success over a series of events, their rating increases, and vice versa. A rating of 1.00 is the highest possible score.

Here are the Grand Prix DB Power Ratings prior to the 2009 Australian GP:

1. Sebastian Vettel, 0.84
2. Robert Kubica, 0.82
3. Felipe Massa, 0.79
4. Kimi Raikkonen, 0.76
5. Jenson Button, 0.74
6. Rubens Barrichello, 0.74
7. Fernando Alonso, 0.69
8. Timo Glock, 0.68
9. Nico Rosberg, 0.67
10. Jarno Trulli, 0.63
11. Nick Heidfeld, 0.60
12. Mark Webber, 0.58
13. Lewis Hamilton, 0.54
14. Nelson Piquet Jr, 0.43
15. Kazuki Nakajima, 0.42
16. Heikki Kovalainen, 0.41
17. Sebastien Buemi, 0.33
18. Sebastien Bourdais, 0.31
19. Giancarlo Fisichella, 0.25
20. Adrian Sutil, 0.20

The amazing Brawn GP are taking full advantage of their technical superiority at the moment by having its two drivers lock out the front row. With a healthy gap to the rest of the field, many are predicting a runaway by Button and Barrichello. But things are never so easy in racing and the Brawn drivers certainly will have their hardest work of the weekend ahead of them in tomorrow’s race.

Red Bull’s Vettel continues to amaze with his ability to put it all together for qualifying. Despite limited practice due to technical problems and driver error on Vettel’s part, he was still able to put in a lightening lap to take third on the grid. And as he proved in the second half of ‘08, Vettel’s qualifying pace proves to be no fluke in the race itself. However, as we all saw in practice, reliability could be a major issue for Red Bull on Sunday.

BMW Sauber’s Kubica, the most consistent driver of ‘08, is once again poised to pounce if any of the top three cars falter. With three upstarts ahead of him on the starting grid and the expected season points contenders a nice gap behind, it will be interesting to see how Kubica approaches the early part of the race. I believe all things taken together, BMW Sauber is the best prepared team for ‘09, so I do not see them wasting a chance for a valuable points haul with a glory run for the front on the opening laps. And it is certain that they will be expecting a podium finish tomorrow.

The Ferraris actually looked pretty good on the track and their lack of ultimate pace is a bit surprising. It will be an interesting battle to see if the KERS-equipped Ferrari drivers can overcome the “diffuser” teams of Toyota and Williams who are not running KERS.

As we wait to see the weights of the cars for race published, comes the news that McLaren will change the gearbox on Hamilton’s car and he will start last on the grid. If there were ever a time for a driver to live up to his team’s hype…

It is refreshing to see Williams and Toyota, along with Brawn fighting at the front with legitimate pace. The early flyaway races can distort reality in comparison to the usual form taking hold when the European races come around. Yet, the ‘09 Australian GP takes unpredicability to a new level and we are guaranteed to see more surprises in tomorrow’s race.

We’re just a few hours away from the first free practice session of the 2009 F1 season. With sweeping rules changes introduced for this year, it is very hard to predict which driver or team will come out on top. Furthermore, offseason testing created more questions than answers with the new Brawn GP team (nee Honda, nee BAR, nee Tyrrell) setting the pace while McLaren were uncharacteristically near the bottom of the time sheets.

We’ve seen many sites providing previews and assessments of the upcoming season, but no one seems foolish enough to actually rank the contenders. That’s where GrandPrixDB comes in. After all, we have no advertisers to answer to and no subscribers to entice to pay us. Basically how much Web traffic we generate has no bearing on whether or not we can put food on the table. So what follows is our predictions for the top 6 drivers in this year’s championship. And when the inaugural Abu Dhabi Grand Prix comes around November 1st, we can either have a good laugh or toast our cleverness.

#6: Lewis Hamilton – Despite McLaren’s struggles in preseason testing, it will be mistake to write off the defending champion. However, his team’s inability to roll off the trailer in testing with a car that adequately manages oversteer means that Hamilton begins the season at a disadvantage to his rivals. Depending on how many races it takes for McLaren to recover, Hamilton may not be able to make up lost points from the opening rounds of the Championship.

#5 Jenson Button – Based strictly on two weeks of testing and the fact that the brilliant Ross Brawn is in charge of the entire operation, it seems that at least one of the team’s cars will be able to consistently run at the front and score points regularly. Nevertheless, it is never easy to build a race-winning organization, let alone overcome the lack of testing miles and high off-season drama that Brawn GP has dealt with just to make it to the grid. When the car is good, Button is at his absolute best. So we expect him to shine in 2009 and score a lot of points. But the team will experience growing pains and little mistakes here and there will mean that Button won’t enjoy the consistency throughout the season to be Champion.

#4: Felipe Massa – Ferrari have been near the front in testing and they have two very competitive drivers. They will win their share of races. But there have been nagging reliability issues that bring into question how many races the team’s cars will be able to finish this season. Certainly, when unreliability rears its ugly head, Kimi Raikkonen seems to suffer the worst. Massa has upped the technical side of his game during his tenure at Ferrari, and this added piece in his arsenal may enable him to deal with less than ideal conditions better than his teammate.

#3: Nick Heidfeld – Written off by many after being thoroughly thrashed by teammate Robert Kubica last year, there are many signs pointing to a big year for the super smooth German driver. He is still quick and perhaps the smoothest driver in F1. We believe smoothness will be utterly important this year as the 2009 cars have much more tendency towards oversteer and subsequent wearing of the rear tires than any in recent memory. Additionally, his active record of 28 straight classified finishes suggests an incredibly sympathetic touch and consistency in a variety of circumstances. His relatively small stature should also allow better ballasting of his chassis when integrating the 35kg KERS system compared to teammate Kubica. Perhaps Heidfeld will be able to run KERS for every race this season. Heidfeld showed the world just how quick he is in 2007, and with BMW Sauber continuing its upward progress, Heidfeld should return to the front of the grid and be in the Championship hunt for the entire season.

#2 Fernando Alonso – The Spanish driver proved he is the best in the business last year by playing a pivotal role in improving the dreadful Renault R28 from low mid-packer to race winner by the end of the season. The new R29 is pure ugly, but it has been reliable and reasonably quick in testing. Factor in the intangibles that Alonso, the two-time Champion, brings to the table combined with the ability of his Renault team to rise to occasion, and you have a legitimate contender. The only factor that will prevent Alonso from adding a third Championship will be the ultimate pace of the R29.

#1 Robert Kubica – Our pick for 2009 World Champion is Robert Kubica. In 2008, he combined his incredible natural pace with race savvy, reliability, and consistency. There is no underestimating Dr. Mario Theissen’s deliberate hand in building BMW Sauber into a championship-winning team. Testing proceeded in a very typical and undramatic manner for the team. While they were not the pacesetters, they experienced few if any reliability problems, and seemingly few if any problems in understanding how to tune the chassis. They had no reason to show off their pace in testing and this weekend, they will unleash their true pace. The team’s steady improvement over the past three seasons is right in line with how other teams throughout history have evolved into the top teams of their generation. In comparing the two BMW Sauber drivers, Kubica has proven to be quicker, and in 2008, he became a race winner. This edge will be the difference in vaulting Kubica to the Championship.

There you have it. It’s time to go racing in Melbourne and we look forward to a great 2009.

Now that speculation has been confirmed and Honda is indeed pulling out of F1, it has also emerged that Cosworth engines will be available at a very reasonable price beginning in 2010 to any F1 team that wants them. This Cosworth proposal is the most pragmatic solution to the current worldwide financial crisis that is finally hitting F1, and is exactly the solution that the staff of GrandPrixDB hoped the FIA would offer to the teams.

The irony is that Cosworth was drummed out of F1 by the herd flocking to manufacturer-owned teams or for independents, the fashionable technical partnerships with manufacturers. The last Cosworth engine to run in F1 was with Williams in 2006. The feeling within the team was that the V8 engine was extremely good, even boasting the highest engine speed in the field. But as in all forms of top-level open wheel racing, the lure of manufacturer money meant that Cosworth did not have a place in modern F1. That is, until now.

As we mentioned yesterday, there was a time over 30 years ago, when virtually the entire field was comprised of independent teams running Cosworth V8s. Throughout the history of F1, legendary names have won races and championships with Cosworth, names such as Clark, Hill, Stewart, Fittipaldi, Senna, and the list goes on. Fans should see no shame in their favorite team running a standard “Cossie” behind a chassis of the team’s own creation.

In concert with the re-introduction of Cosworth is the preservation of factory engines from the manufacturers. Indeed, Max Mosley specifically clarified that teams will not be forced to run the standard engine and are free to build their own. This arrangement is in keeping with the tradition of F1 and is a win-win situation for the sport, given the current financial situation.

In a week’s time, we will find out which teams will decide to run the standard engine. There could be some surprising names on the list. Yet, if fewer than the desired four teams do sign up, it will be interesting to see how the FIA proceeds with its program. Given the developments in the last 24 hours, the next few weeks will see critical changes that will ultimately reshape the face of F1 in the near future.