Grand Prix DB provides each driver’s statistical rating prior to the start of the race. A rating of 1.00 is the highest possible score. Here are the Grand Prix DB Power Ratings for the Singapore GP:

1. Lewis Hamilton, 0.91
2. Felipe Massa, 0.88
3. Heikki Kovalainen, 0.84
4. Nick Heidfeld, 0.80
5. Robert Kubica, 0.75
6. Kimi Raikkonen, 0.65
7. Fernando Alonso, 0.63
8. Sebastian Vettel, 0.61
9. Jarno Trulli, 0.60
10. Timo Glock, 0.60
11. Nico Rosberg, 0.55
12. Mark Webber, 0.53
13. Nelson Piquet Jr, 0.52
14. Kazuki Nakajima, 0.49
15. Sebastien Bourdais, 0.45
16. Jenson Button, 0.41
17. David Coulthard, 0.39
18. Rubens Barrichello, 0.35
19. Giancarlo Fisichella, 0.27
20. Adrian Sutil, 0.25

Although Massa was fractions behind Hamilton in every session through Q1, the Brazilian caught fire in Q2 en route to setting the fastest times in the last two qualifying sessions and taking pole by a considerable margin. The suggestion is that Ferrari is playing a fuel load game, but that would run counter to their typical approach to races. The fact that Massa had considerable pace in Q2 and followed that by a scintillating lap in Q3 can be interpreted that he is not particularly light on fuel.

Ferrari also appear to have a better understanding of the tire compounds this weekend than McLaren, as evidenced by Hamilton’s struggles in Q2. And the fact is Massa is not a smoke-and-mirrors driver and typically he is either on his game or not. Massa and Ferrari seem to be on the top of their game, and Massa looks very strong for tomorrow. A win would place him at the top of the driver’s standings.

Hamilton for the second race weekend in a row had a mysterious Q2 and nearly didn’t make it into Q3. But as we saw at Monza, his Q2 performance said very little about what we can expect from him in the race. However, Peter Sauber recently accused Hamilton of buckling under pressure and tomorrow’s race has all the signs of being a pressure cooker. Not only does Hamilton have a slight disadvantage in car performance, but Raikkonen has surprisingly (of late) qualified well and could play a role in disrupting Hamilton’s race. These are the moments where Hamilton either rises above the occasion or implodes with a critical error.

Meanwhile in the fourth position is Kubica who, as earlier in the season is well poised to take advantage other others’ mistakes. If only BMW Sauber given the Pole more support in the middle of the season to keep him closer in the points battle. As I have alluded to before, Championship opportunities don’t come by very often, and with all the mistakes made by McLaren and Ferrari this season, BMW Sauber may come to regret that they did not make a stronger push to capitalize on their good fortune that followed them all the way to Canada.

With all the negative reaction to Max Mosley’s comment about introducing a common engine across the board for F1, no one has been able to counter propose a solution that will help reduce budgets and keep the field at a healthy size.

GrandPrixDB has a solution. The FIA should offer bespoke engines to any team that wants it while continuing to allow manufacturers to build and supply their own units. The FIA engine would be offered at a considerably lower price than a customer arrangement from a manufacturer (like Ferrari). And with the engine freeze concept, the FIA unit would be relevant for many years with minimal development required.

If a company decides to brand this engine, then it seems like there are a lot of winners in this scenario. Even multiple companies can become involved. Remember when Petronas badged the Ferrari customer engine for Sauber?

Of course the argument is that the bespoke engine will never match the performance of a Ferrari or Mercedes powerplant. Yes, this is true. But in reality, there are several manufacturers currently in F1 pouring millions upon millions of dollars into development to already be in this position. Renault and Honda come to mind. And if there is a team that chooses to use the bespoke engine, then we already know that they will not have the resources to be front runners anyway.

The point is, such an engine will reduce the barriers to enter and remain in F1, allow lower-budgeted teams the opportunity to develop, and let the best teams continue to realize the rewards of their hard work and innovation. These top-to-bottom benefits will help ensure the long term prosperity of F1.

I’ll keep this post short. Doesn’t the 2009-spec F1 car with it’s tiny rear wing look amazingly like one of those miniature remote control racers you can buy at your neighborhood hobby store? Scroll to the bottom of the article on autosport.com, find the picture of the Williams FW30 fitted with the new rear wing, and see for yourself. No word yet on when these little buggers will hit store shelves.

Is it possible that Sebastian Vettel’s remarkable win at the Italian GP signals a new guard has arrived in F1? Coincidentally, the podium featured this season’s first-time winners, Vettel, Heikki Kovalainen (Hungary), and Robert Kubica (Canada). And all three are best known for their driving and for how well they can work with their teams. And what is absent from their current respective personas is an overblown adulation by a the press, impetuous outbursts, or questions about their commitment. They really are a breath of fresh air for F1.

Realistically, neither one of the three may reach the top step of the podium again in 2008. So there really has not been a changing of the guard. But I, for one, have become a bit weary of the extracurricular controversies that have engulfed F1 since the beginning of 2007. I cannot remember a time when fewer than two seasons have felt more like 10. And I believe it is possible to have exciting action on the track without a driver or team having to so often attempt to redefine what is fair and honest competition on and off the track.

My view towards the 2009 season is a minority one, but I sincerely hope that the introduction of KERS and an overhaul of the technical regulations causes a massive shakeup in the field. I hope that BMW Sauber and Honda have done such a great job developing their systems that they realize a tremendous advantage from their efforts. And I hope that one of the last true innovators in F1, Red Bull technical director Adrian Newey, successfully continues to develop the car that recorded its first victory in the capable hands of Vettel in Italy.

I can only hope. But I also realize that on 22 September 2008, reality will be back to slap us all in the face again.

Grand Prix DB provides each driver’s statistical rating prior to the start of the race. A rating of 1.00 is the highest possible score. Here are the Grand Prix DB Power Ratings for the Italian GP:

1. Felipe Massa, 0.87
2. Heikki Kovalainen, 0.85
3. Lewis Hamilton, 0.81
4. Nick Heidfeld, 0.75
5. Fernando Alonso, 0.74
6. Kimi Raikkonen, 0.71
7. Jarno Trulli, 0.66
8. Robert Kubica, 0.66
9. Mark Webber, 0.64
10. Timo Glock, 0.55
11. Sebastian Vettel, 0.55
12. Sebastien Bourdais, 0.55
13. Nelson Piquet Jr, 0.53
14. Nico Rosberg, 0.52
15. David Coulthard, 0.46
16. Kazuki Nakajima, 0.39
17. Rubens Barrichello, 0.38
18. Jenson Button, 0.31
19. Giancarlo Fisichella, 0.30
20. Adrian Sutil, 0.25

After an unbelievable qualifying, Sebastian Vettel is now the youngest driver to ever win pole position for an F1 race. The performance of the Toro Rosso team was backed up by Sebastien Bourdais’s best ever qualifying in fourth. Not only was it a banner day for Toro Rosso, it was a strong showing for the Red Bull family as Mark Webber slots in to the third grid spot.

So can Vettel convert tomorrow? A lot depends on the weather. But make no mistake, Vettel has run strongly in the past in wet conditions, and he was also fastest in Q2 today. It just might be a remarkable weekend for the German.

Also looking very strong is Heikki Kovalainen, who soundly outran his teammate in Q1 (and of course, Q2). Given the relative strength of the McLaren team, he looks to be the favorite for tomorrow.

In row 2 are sentimental favorites. For Webber. seemingly on the road to stardom a few years ago when he signed with the then BMW Williams team, high finishes have been few and far between since then. Meanwhile, Bourdais is fighting to keep his place in F1, and another strong result tomorrow will go a long way towards securing his future.

Clearly the driver coming out the worst today is Lewis Hamilton. Once again he and his McLaren team suffered from an unforced error by choosing to go with intermediate tires at the beginning of Q2 when the track was at its fastest for the session. What Hamilton can do with P15 on the grid remains to be seen. Most importantly, he must avoid getting involved in a silly collision on the first lap. A disturbing trend, however, is that Hamilton’s misfortunes have come in two’s this season.

There was Malaysia, where Hamilton was demoted five grid spots for blocking in Q3, immediately followed by Bahrain, where he ran into the back of Fernando Alonso early in the race. Then there was the infamous Canada pit lane collision immediately followed by his first chicane cutting penalty in France. And finally we have the even more infamous second chicane cutting penalty immediately followed by what may happen tomorrow. Will the trend continue or be broken? The answer may hold the key to the eventual outcome of the championship. It he stays clean in the early part of the race, it could be a great day for Hamilton just for that.

Starting just one place ahead is Kimi Raikkonen, who could really play an important supporting role for his teammate by holding Hamilton back and out of the points. However, I doubt that Raikkonen would play into such tactics. It is not that he isn’t a team player, but like Hamilton, he still must believe a strong result is possible if he can just stay out of trouble early on and then work his way up the field.

Finally, Felipe Massa looks to be in a good position to move up in the points standings. However, sixth on the grid is still a fairly dangerous place to start in terms of getting caught up in a fracas. And just what does Massa have for the rest of the field is unclear. He has not been higher than fifth in any session this weekend. He might not be able to take advantage the way some would expect unless he can find more pace and not commit any mistakes.

I always look forward to the Italian GP at Monza because I love this race track. Whether it turns out to be a flag-to-flag victory by one driver or a lottery contest with multiple lead changes, I know the event will be enjoyable. Unfortunately, others involved in the sport are instead feeling rather dour about the prospects of racing.

On autosport.com, Renault’s Pat Symonds made the rather dramatic statement in response to last weekend’s Belgian GP: “Here we had a great race with people really challenging each other and for why? If it’s taken away, then why take that risk?”

The story headline is even more ominous: Symonds: Spa penalty will stifle racing.

The implication of the article could not be any further off the mark. I doubt that most drivers while in the heat of the battle will think about Hamilton’s 25-second penalty and decide to not attempt an overtaking maneuver. If that were the case, then retirement is definitely a better option for that person.

If anyone is the shining example of how little effect the Belgian GP outcome will have on wheel-to-wheel racing, it is Hamilton himself. Let’s see what Hamilton had to say, also on autosport.com, about his approach to racing in the immediate future.

“Well, that’s [Raikkonen's] driving, that’s all,” he said. “That is how he drives. If you don’t have the balls to brake late then that is your problem! At the end of the day, in those situations it is the driver who can feel the grip more and put the car more on the edge.

“I still have a two-point lead and we are going to make sure that we continue to attack and perform like we did in the last two races.”

In his one-and-a-half seasons of F1, Hamilton has probably had more ups-and-downs than many drivers have in their entire career. If anything, Hamilton has proven to be amazingly resilient and has never lost his fighting spirit.

I’m sure the rest of the drivers in F1 will continue to race in the same manner as before. To suggest that one penalty, albeit one that had enormous consequences on the offical results, will suddenly cause racing drivers to stop “racing” is just crazy talk.

Before moving on to preparations for the Italian GP this weekend, here’s one more post regarding the 2008 Belgian GP. McLaren has made it quite clear that Charlie Whiting’s comments to them during the race played an important role in how they managed Lewis Hamilton’s race from the pit wall. You are probably familiar with them by now, and an article on itv.com pretty much sums it all up.

Ron Dennis: “Of course Charlie can only give an opinion because he’s not the stewards, but he gave the opinion that we had complied properly to the regulations.”

Martin Whitmarsh: “From the pit wall, we then asked Race Control to confirm that they were comfortable that Lewis had allowed Kimi to repass, and they confirmed twice that they believed that the position had been given back in a manner that was ‘okay’.

“If Race Control had instead expressed any concern regarding Lewis’s actions at that time, we would have instructed Lewis to allow Kimi to repass for a second time.”

At face value, these statements form the foundation for a strong case favoring McLaren. And the common link that just might make-or-break the verdict is Charlie Whiting. If Whiting indeed made statements to this effect, then it will be of utmost importance to know what exactly he reported to the stewards.

It is inconceivable that Whiting could assure McLaren that Hamilton complied with the regulations while at the same time, act in accordance with F1 Sporting Regulations, Article 16. It states that the stewards make decisions regarding incidents based on reports from or at the request of the race director, one Mr. Charlie Whiting.

Clearly, there are important details missing from what the public knows about what transpired. I hope that in time, we will all find out what really happened behind the scenes.

We would expect Kimi Raikkonen, Felipe Massa, and Fernando Alonso to accept the outcome of last weekend’s Belgian GP. However, in a surprising public comment, Jarno Trulli has come out in favor of the steward’s decision to penalize Lewis Hamilton.

In the Italian publication, Gazzetta dello Sport, Trulli opined, “In my opinion Hamilton got an advantage by cutting the chicane. Had he stayed on the road, he wouldn’t have had the speed to overtake the Ferrari.

“In the same way at Monza someone could cut the first chicane, catch a rival’s draft, and overtake him under braking at Roggia.

“When you attack on the outside, you do it at your own risk, because who’s on the inside has the right to do the corner. If there isn’t enough room, then you lift.

“Had there been a wall there, instead of the surfaced escape route, would Lewis have attacked anyway? Had there been gravel, he wouldn’t have had the chance to attack when rejoining the track because of dirty tyres.”

There is no word yet on whether Jackie Stewart, Sterling Moss, and Niki Lauda consider Trulli’s comments to be rubbish.

As one would expect, the fury rages on in the reaction to the stewards’ decision to impose a 25-second time penalty on Lewis Hamilton for an alleged illegal pass on Kimi Raikkonen at the Belgain GP.

What I find most interesting is that a great deal of opinion suggests that the results of the Grand Prix should not have been changed simply because the race was already run. In other words, what’s done is done, and because the spectators have left the building and the lights have gone out, the results are final, end of story.

I must disagree.

As much as we want our sports to be pure, the reality is, they are not. Two other popular sports in Europe, cycling and athletics, are great examples of how results cannot stand immediately after the event is completed. Sure, after a reasonable amount of time has passed, the results should stand unless something extraordinary comes to light. But the specter of doping has changed the interpretation of what “official results” means to event directors, the press, and fans.

Would anyone argue that Floyd Landis should keep his 2006 Tour de France victory simply because he was the one who celebrated on the Champs-Elysees with the maillot jaune and the champagne? Should Marion Jones be allowed to keep her Olympic gold medals and records simply because history recorded her as the winner in all these sprint races at the time they occurred?

Unfortunately, doping controls are seemingly more at the top of people’s minds these days in determining the final outcome of certain sporting contests than the races themselves. And while the various governing bodies now appear to be gaining the upper hand in the clean sport movement, those who follow these sports now automatically pause before accepting that what they saw with their own eyes is indeed the genuine article.

I am not arguing that what happened with Lewis Hamilton at Spa compares to the transgressions that I mentioned in other sports. But what is important to remember is that in order for sporting contests to exist, there must be rules that are followed and punishments applied if those rules are broken. Referees are human and make mistakes. In the case of Hamilton, a careful analysis of the situation reveals that the stewards have some basis in fact for making their decision. Whether it was enough to justify punishment or if the punishment actually fits the crime will be determined by the appeals courts.

Without rules, there is no sport. And the check-and-balance is the appeals process, where the affected party is provided the opportunity to plead their case and judges can carefully examine the evidence in a proper environment. The matter of Lewis Hamilton at the 2008 Belgian GP is not the end of F1 as a sport. Instead, it is a confirmation that to participate in sports is to be human, and the sanctity of our activities is preserved by the necessary and sometimes painful process of examining whether or not the rules were applied properly, fairly, and evenly.

Now that McLaren has formally registered their intention to appeal the ruling handed down against Lewis Hamilton for his pass of Kimi Raikkonen during the closing stages of the Belgian GP, let’s examine what evidence McLaren must overcome to win the appeal.

The staff of GrandPrixDB has concluded that the stewards ruled on two key points in reaching their current decision. First, the alleged accident Hamilton said he was trying to avoid was in fact only a result of intentional actions by Hamilton himself. Second, Hamilton let Raikkonen by and then set up the pass in one continuous move. There needed to be a break in the two actions in order for Hamilton to comply with the regulation, and Hamilton failed to do this.

Here is a blow-by-blow analysis:

Hamilton is ahead going into the Bus Stop chicane, but Raikkonen has the inside line and clearly has the corner won. Hamilton would be expected to respect the racing track proper. Critically, he instead aggressively fights his way into the turn without an obvious escape route on the actual racing track. If he stays on the track, an accident is inevitable.

As expected, Raikkonen uses the full width of the track to exit the turn. Hamilton has nowhere to go.

To avoid a potential accident of his own doing, Hamilton cuts the Bus Stop chicane and passes Raikkonen—a clear infraction.

Rather than immediately and decisively letting Raikkonen by, Hamilton accelerates with Raikkonen, albeit at a slightly slower rate.

As he edges past, Raikkonen reacts to Hamilton’s presence and momentarily steers away as Hamilton continues unabated.

Raikkonen now attempts to set up the ideal entry into La Source. Hamilton reacts by setting up his overtaking maneuver immediately as Raikkonen goes clear. His actions from the exit of Bus Stop continues unabated.

Hamilton now has his pass set up perfectly.

Hamilton wins the entry into La Source and goes into the lead.

In order for McLaren and Hamilton to prevail in their appeal, they must prove that in fact there was a break in the two actions of Hamilton letting Raikkonen retake the lead and the subsequent overtaking maneuver by Hamilton into La Source.