Bob Barnard Track Engineering

Bret asked me to comment on the 107% rule so here goes. Long, long ago in a land far far away where I grew up there was a 107% rule for qualifying in F1. I don't know who decided that 7% was a safe number for cars to be on track in the race, why not 5% or 10%? And why only in the race? In the race they start from the back so they are out of the way for the most dangerous part, the start, and probably by the time the fast cars come around they will be broken down. No, we let them out all day Friday and Saturday when cars are circulating randomly. Is this smart? Anyway, 107% it was and it was set by the pole time, as we did not have today's three sessions. We still had cars qualifying on low fuel and with special engines for most of the time, so the bar was set pretty high.

Then sometime recently the rule went away. I do not recall specifically.  Perhaps it was because the powers that be thought all the cars were so quick it was not needed. Or perhaps because we only had twenty cars we could not afford to lose any to a silly safety rule. It is there presumably to keep cars that are too slow out of the way. Then we had the three part qualifying, and then last year the new teams, who were really slow. So we reinstate it. But how do we measure it? 107% of what? Not pole time, that is set in Q3, no it is 107% of the Q1 session time because that is when the slow cars are eliminated. But why should that matter? If we are worried about their speed relative to the fast cars, then it should be measured against Q2 or 3 when they are likely to have the soft tires on as they would in the race.

But now let's look at the race. Pole time in Malaysia was around 1 min 36 secs, but for most of the race the quick cars could only manage 1 min 42-44 sec laps. We saw a couple of 1 min 40 sec times, but these were the exception, but even with these everyone except the HRT's would qualify. If you took a typical 1 min 44 sec lap then HRT 's fastest lap was 5 seconds off the pace.

So what does it mean and do we care? Bret says that we watch F1 to see the best, and he is correct, but on that basis what of the Williams performance? F1 is a cruel sport, new teams get no help at all, and no sympathy, and perhaps that is how it should be. Bruce McLaren had to go through it, and so did Peter Sauber more recently. You could argue that HRT is not better than the best GP2 Teams, but the GP2 boys do not have to build their own cars. And so the argument could go on.

Let's get back to the real reason 107% is supposed to be there, safety. It is conceivable that cars that qualified OK develop a problem and cannot keep that pace in the race. What then? Presumably the Race Director will decide if it constitutes a danger to other competitors and black flag it, but on what basis? 107% of the others lap times? I doubt it, it will be a judgment call. So why have a number? I know in NASCAR we often see the "walking wounded" come back out after a wreck and try to earn points, and often they are black flagged as too slow. So why not just write a rule that says "in the opinion of the Race Director the car is not maintaining a safe speed?" If we cannot trust Charlie then we are in trouble.

That's the problem with rules, as soon as you write them there are lawyers looking for ways around them. Look at yesterday's piece about the F1 finances. Bernie said once that the less rules the better, then no one can argue about whether they broke it. We saw the crazy 6mm under the car rule, well those of us old enough did, where the cars were blatantly not 6mm off the track when racing, only in pit lane. Now we have the Red Bull flexible front wing that visibly touches the track and mechanics are seen repairing the bottom edge, but it meets the rule. Ferrari are going to build one, so it must exist. Why not write a rule that says "no part of the car may be seen to make contact with the track at any point during the race?" Then instead of test weights and carbon fiber lay up we just rerun the tape in the Stewards room, game over. But that would be too easy.

I know you all think F1 cars run on gasoline, petrol, but they really run on money, and lots of it. As promised the Pit Pass web site has come up with the goods to explain why 2010 was harder for F1 to make money, but make money they did because the bad economy lowered the interest rates on the debt. And when you have that much debt, as CVC does, then you are quids in. For the full explanation go to;

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.php?fes_art_id=43328

As Mrs. Barnard said last week when the original story broke about the huge loss, it looks like money laundering, but no, it is good old tax avoidance, and all quite legal I'm sure. Most of the expenses must be in lawyers and accountants fees to work all this out and manipulate it. It does show however that the income from race fees may have peaked, with tracks no longer willing or able to pay up. If that is true, and if as Jean Todt suggests the TV audience is down, then when interest rates go back up there could be a problem. Bernie is telling us though that the debt will be repaid by 2014, so maybe not. I have learned that Bernie is a lot smarter than anyone else I know when it comes to making money.

In a related story it seems his henchman, Patrick McNally, his signage cohort, is retiring. I hope he has trained someone well to replace him as I do not know anyone who can place signs like Patrick, truly amazing. If you do not think that this is an art stop watching the cars next race and just look at the signs and where they are placed. Remember, in most countries the TV cannot be placed or shot to maximise the signs, the signage has to be "incidental." There is nothing incidental about where Patrick puts them, the cameraman cannot help but shoot them.

Lots of discussion about a "confusing" race yesterday, and if the drivers found it confusing how about your average fan. I did not find it confusing, but as I said yesterday, I found it unsatisfying. I did not comment yesterday on the amount of rubber on the track off-line as it did not seem to stop a lot of overtaking, but Perez said that his crash could have been caused by picking up a chunk on his tire, and drivers have come out about being hit by flying pieces. This is not a good situation.

Well the Malaysian GP has been run and won, and I do not know how I feel about it. Vettel and Red Bull could get as boring as Schumacher. You have to admire them, they find a way to win even when the KERS does not work, but I will show my bias when I say it does not thrill me. Pirelli say their tires made for an interesting race, but call me a purist, but I don't find this fun to watch. As Michael said, this is a lottery, and he should know, he seemed more off than on.

The rain stayed away, but teased everyone to add to the lottery, and the DRS did work on occasions, but not always, so not sure about that either. We saw a lot of overtaking at other points around the track, mainly Turn 15, which tells me it is more about the track than messing about with the car. The slow cars seemed to stay out of the way, so well done, and Lotus actually did OK, so maybe we will see them mixing it in the mid-field. Williams had a terrible day, one to forget, while we ponder what would Kubica be doing with that Renault? Very odd steering column failure on the Petrov car, but then he did get very airborne thanks to the hump in the run-off. Not good.

So in all a dissatisfying race for me, but not really sure why. Lewis probably feels the same, and what was Alonso thinking? The pace of the Ferraris in the race was surprising, and Massa seems to have recovered his speed and determination. Mercedes are in trouble.

Bernie is reportedly trying to get the teams to oppose the 2013 engine, and Malaysia is pondering whether to renew after 2015. At least there was a crowd today, it was empty for Friday and Saturday which must be disheartening for the drivers, and the organizers.

Chip Ganassi did not quite sweep Barber, but won the Grand-Am race of course, and finished second and third in the Indycar. Not too shabby.

Well that would have been a great qualifying to watch if my new DVD recorder had not decided to record in "skip" mode. Anyone else had this problem? Made for a short session, but skipped the good bits of course. Great to see the McLarens right there with Red Bull and it should be a great race, I may have to stay up and watch it, but then there are the ads which are even more annoying at 2 am. Rain has stayed away, but who knows what tomorrow will bring between that and the tires. Ferrari have a lot to do, but the Renaults improved.

It is interesting how happy Tony Fernandes was with 19th and 20th. If you just look at the position not much has changed, the fastest of the new teams. But look at the times and they are making progress, just behind Maldanado in the Williams, and within a second of the midfield that Tony so dearly wants to join. Williams must wonder what hit them. They looked pretty good in practice, but lost the way in Qualy. HRT did get within the 107% rule, but are still 7&8 seconds off the pace. They are going to see a lot of the leaders, if they last that long.

Interesting how Ducati have got around the testing limitations by bringing out next years machine to test at Jerez. Within the written rule, this is clearly not in the spirit and I bet the other teams are now looking to build an "ineligible" machine to test, including some of the current bits of course. Bit like Ferrari's "filming."

Colin Chapman would have been proud. Sir Stirling Moss said that the front uprights were always on the margin, so both Lotus Renaults failing in the same way in first practice in Malaysia is totally consistent with the real Lotus legend.

Webber has bounced back from his slower than expected form in Oz, leading both sessions, but with the McLarens hot on his heels. Who knows who had what fuel load though, and I hope the Ferraris were working on set up because they are a long way off the time so far. There are some big gaps to the bulk of the field who are all two-three seconds off. The other Lotus continues to disappoint, and the sight of the HRT leaving the pits trailing a plume of oil smoke sums up their day. They are seven seconds off the pace so far, right on the bubble of not qualifying again.

Tire feel and wear is apparently totally different to Australia. At one point in the first session Button went out and immediately radioed in to ask if there was something wrong at the back of the car as he had no rear grip! Pirelli believe that anyone starting on the softs will only get eight laps out of them, and between the potential rain and the tires Button is expecting "mayhem." Well they wanted to make the races more interesting, or as Michael said, "a lottery." Not sure that is what I tune in to watch.

Following on from yesterday's piece on fuel consumption going up with the exhaust driven diffuser, it seems the Red Bulls are very marginal on fuel. We saw Mark pull into pit out as soon as he crossed the finish line in Australia, and it is now apparent he did not think he had the fuel to do the warm down lap. The Red Bulls also only did one lap prior to the start, so they are cutting it fine. They are running the KERS system at the moment, but it sounded to me like it was not working for Vettel in first practice. Whatever was wrong he was not running well and finished well down the order. It is reported that they will make a decision to run it or not, but by their own admission they need it here. A chink in the armor? The others can only hope as McLaren think Red Bull are still keeping half a second up their sleeve.

We have Indycar and Grand-Am at Barber Motorsport Park this weekend. Another Chip Ganassi benefit?