Organisers of the Australian Grand Prix breathed a sigh of relief at the conclusion of Sunday’s race, which put a positive spin on what had become a weekend of dysfunction.
There’s no two ways about it: Saturday’s qualifying was a disaster.
Not only was it boring for anyone who happened to be watching, it put on display Formula One at its very worst – non-communicative, incoherent, and unstable.
It started positively, but by Q3 – traditionally the climax of Saturday, with the top ten cars trying to time their laps for the last possible second to take advantage of an improving track – the plan’s unravelling was obvious.
Six of the top eight drivers completed just one lap at the beginning of the session. Had Nico Rosberg not failed to put his car on the front row on that first run it’s likely Mercedes wouldn’t have opted to send its drivers out a second time.
The drivers were back in their garages with five minutes to spare – Lewis Hamilton could have waved the chequered flag for his own pole position.
The fight over the viability of the qualifying format has been going on for months, with the drivers in particular staunchly opposed, and they mobilised this weekend to make sure everyone knew they were united in their disappointment in not being consulted.
“I don’t see why everybody’s surprised now,” Sebastian Vettel said in the post-qualifying press conference, already changed into his team kit. “We all said what was going to happen. It happened.”
Fernando Alonso was bluntly unimpressed.
“This is nothing new – we spoke, and there were some meetings in Barcelona with the FIA etcetera with the drivers, but they do what they want,” he said resignedly.
A lack of consultation leading to imprecise and poorly reasoned decision-making has long characterised this sport, with its increasingly convoluted governance structure.
At the end of 2013 the sport’s regulatory process was upended. The sporting and technical working groups, which previously reported to the F1 commission, were usurped by the all-new F1 strategy group, which comprises just six of the biggest teams, along with the FIA and Bernie Ecclestone.
Only the strategy group can write suggested regulations. The F1 commission can only approve or reject them.
Formula One’s regulations are thus held hostage by a powerful group of parties embroiled in individual self-interest, with none bar perhaps the FIA able to legislate for the greater good.
Felipe Massa can testify as one of the seven drivers who attended a Pirelli-hosted rules summit in February, which unsurprisingly ended with little agreement.
“To be honest, it’s not nice feeling, because you see that many team principals, many people, are just thinking about the result in the end for them, for their team and for their interests,” he revealed.
“I think the drivers are [thinking like this] less… than how it is with the team principals, Bernie Ecclestone, Jean Todt, and everybody together. It’s not easy.
“Maybe this is something we need to try to improve in Formula One.”
But telling everyone to play nice and expecting a result would be a desperately naïve fix. Indeed, if the strategy group hasn’t got the message after all these years, this one qualifying mistake among a litany of missteps isn’t going to change the world.
“The problem is that the teams are involved a little bit too much,” Pat Symonds said when asked by this writer what Formula One has to do to get a real result – despite his Williams team sitting on the divisive group.
“You asked what Formula One should do; you should ask Formula One what they’re going to do. The teams aren’t the people to ask.”
Imagine any sporting code in the world that gives the power to only the wealthiest and strongest teams with the expectation they’ll govern for their smaller, more vulnerable competitors. Imagine the AFL giving the rulemaking power to Collingwood, or the NRL to the Broncos. The inevitable conclusion is a sporting dystopia.
“There are some teams that have a huge amount of money, and they want rules in a certain way. There are other teams that barely exist, and they want rules in a different way. The stronger ones win,” Symonds said.
“If you had someone who wasn’t batting for one team, you might get some better regulations out of them. If we had a solid direction, we as the teams would just follow.”
But the genie is already out of the bottle. Empowered with legislative authority no team is going to give up their advantage, despite almost all of them admitting it is poison for the sport.
Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas, and Formula One teams don’t vote for fairness. And as if Saturday’s farce wasn’t enough evidence or if you thought Sunday’s outburst of consensus for change showed a painfully slow learning curve, think again: one team is rumoured to have dissented to reverting from the new format.
The power politicking is far from over, and all the while our sport will be the loser.
Follow Michael on Twitter @MichaelLamonato
anon
Guest
"Again, no-one is saying Mercedes isn’t the quicker car overall, only that the advantage isn’t nearly as great as you’re suggesting. In race conditions, when your car isn’t just set up for maximum speed over one lap and has to contend with a whole bunch of constraints, Ferrari is closer." Mercedes looking frighteningly quick in practice!!!
Michael Lamonato
Expert
– There was rain, I got caught in it! – Lap 18, if suboptimal, was only so by a few laps at best. The fact that Force India had already switched both cars and Haas was looking at doing so about them shows that while it might've been a gamble, it was only a minor one. The results also show this. Not all of them have that much dumb luck. –Eh, Rosberg's not that bad. Maybe he lacks the killer instinct that Hamilton has, but he's not hopeless. He'd have had a go if he had the pace advantage. – I don't think so. The Merc is the most effective power unit out there, there's no need to turn it down more, especially if you're not cruising out front. Hamilton would've turned his up when being chased by Vettel if it was that detuned during the race. I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you! Let's reconvene at the end of the year and see how it plays out. At least we get to have this discussion in 2016, unlike last year!
anon
Guest
"– It rained on Saturday before qualifying. Yes, there was still rubber on the track, but it wasn’t a weekend’s worth." I don't recall there being rain between Practice 3 and qualifying. "– Rosberg, Hamilton, Massa, Grosjean, Hulkenberg, Bottas, Palmer, Magnussen, Perez, Nasr and Ericsson make a majority of the 19 running cars. Both Force Indias had already stopped and committed to running mediums for the rest of the race. Grosjean intended to run a one-stop on the medium at around lap 18, likewise Gutierrez. No, they weren’t all guessing or gambling. Melbourne’s normally a one-stop, and Perez ran 38 laps this time last year.: Your're missing the point. The only guys in the top 7 that went with mediums were the Mercedes of Rosberg and Hamilton. Rosberg the only guy in the top 6. IIt makes sense for someone in the midfield to make such a gamble on a hard tyre lasting the remainder of the race. Often teams in the midfield will do something "suboptimal" such one stopping when it's optimal to do two stops because there's potentially a lot of reward if they guess right. Mercedes felt they could last the race with mediums. It meant Hamilton down in 7 would be able eventually leapfrog the cars in front when they pitted if he wasn't able to get past on track. "– Passing is already difficult in Melbourne. We’re already well aware that mechanical grip is at a premium on new tyres, never mind old ones, and this exacerbates the problem. Same reason Rosberg couldn’t pass Raikkonen on track or Hamilton, Verstappen." See above point. Also, Rosberg possesses no race craft. He often makes a meal of passing much slower cars. "– Yes, Mercedes turns its engine down in races. So do all the other teams. That’s part of race conditions for all teams, not just Mercedes." I think Mercedes turn it down more.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
– It rained on Saturday before qualifying. Yes, there was still rubber on the track, but it wasn't a weekend's worth. – Rosberg, Hamilton, Massa, Grosjean, Hulkenberg, Bottas, Palmer, Magnussen, Perez, Nasr and Ericsson make a majority of the 19 running cars. Both Force Indias had already stopped and committed to running mediums for the rest of the race. Grosjean intended to run a one-stop on the medium at around lap 18, likewise Gutierrez. No, they weren't all guessing or gambling. Melbourne's normally a one-stop, and Perez ran 38 laps this time last year. – Passing is already difficult in Melbourne. We're already well aware that mechanical grip is at a premium on new tyres, never mind old ones, and this exacerbates the problem. Same reason Rosberg couldn't pass Raikkonen on track or Hamilton, Verstappen. – Yes, Mercedes turns its engine down in races. So do all the other teams. That's part of race conditions for all teams, not just Mercedes.
Nicholas Belardo
Roar Guru
Having a unit for Sports Governance where they made us do a paper on a non football code, and a presentation on selected topics; twas the best :)
anon
Guest
"The track had about a day’s worth of running on it, but rubbering in from other categories on different tyres specifications doesn’t do nearly as much as a weekend worth of F1 running does." I'm aware of that, but by the time Mercedes put the mediums on we had a full Saturday of support races, practice 3 and qualifying, and about one-quarter or one-third of the race completed (can't remember exactly and it doesn't matter). Plus the track temperature at the start was 37 degrees. “People” might’ve been saying the cars couldn’t get to the end of the race with one set of tyres, but the teams certainly thought they could — the majority went straight onto the mediums and comfortably lasted the distance; it was hardly unique to Mercedes. Vettel on the other hand had to eeke distance out of his supersofts to ensure he could complete the race with the softs, so wasn’t maximising their pace anyway." The Toro Rosso's that were ahead of Hamilton went with softs. Vettel and Raikkonen both went with super-softs. Ricciardo went with softs. That's 5 of the top 7 runners went with super-softs or softs. Only Mercedes went with mediums. Grosjean, the Williams drivers didn't have much to lose so gambled on mediums and the gamble worked. Mercedes had a different thought process. They knew how quick they were on mediums, they preferred to do their passing during pitstops than on track. "Vettel was close enough to Hamilton, and was staying close enough — but when the best overtaking spot on the track is at the end of the straight, where Mercedes’s advantage is at its greatest, of course he would find it difficult to pass." Yes, he couldn't even make inroads despite DRS, Hamilton being on 40 lap old used mediums and Vettel being on 20 lap old new softs. That's how great the Mercedes advantage is. Even with Vettel being able to hang on the back of Hamilton in the final corner, he couldn't make any inroads with DRS. Crazy. "Again, no-one is saying Mercedes isn’t the quicker car overall, only that the advantage isn’t nearly as great as you’re suggesting. In race conditions, when your car isn’t just set up for maximum speed over one lap and has to contend with a whole bunch of constraints, Ferrari is closer." In race conditions Mercedes turn the engine settings down.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
The track had about a day's worth of running on it, but rubbering in from other categories on different tyres specifications doesn't do nearly as much as a weekend worth of F1 running does. "People" might've been saying the cars couldn't get to the end of the race with one set of tyres, but the teams certainly thought they could — the majority went straight onto the mediums and comfortably lasted the distance; it was hardly unique to Mercedes. Vettel on the other hand had to eeke distance out of his supersofts to ensure he could complete the race with the softs, so wasn't maximising their pace anyway. Vettel was close enough to Hamilton, and was staying close enough — but when the best overtaking spot on the track is at the end of the straight, where Mercedes's advantage is at its greatest, of course he would find it difficult to pass. Again, no-one is saying Mercedes isn't the quicker car overall, only that the advantage isn't nearly as great as you're suggesting. In race conditions, when your car isn't just set up for maximum speed over one lap and has to contend with a whole bunch of constraints, Ferrari is closer.
anon
Guest
"For example, while the supersoft is obviously the grippier tyre, the medium excels in low working temperatures, and the track was cold (and green) for this race." It was a mild day. Track temperature was 37 degrees at the start of the race. The track was well and truly rubbered in by Sunday with all the supports and a full day of running on Saturday. So what you're saying is if it's a 12 degree day at Spa for qualifying later this year, the teams will qualify on mediums rather than super-softs? "Couple that with the fact that the Mercs did almost al their pre-season testing on the mediums so know how to maximise that tyre and the the W07 is generally better with its tyres, and also that Rosberg was on new mediums and Vettel on used supersofts (remember that the supersofts are at their peak for only a few laps) and you can see why the gap wasn’t as large as the two-step difference would suggest." We're talking two whole steps in tyre compound. Sure, for qualifying if you want peak performance you only have a couple of laps with the supersofts, but supersofts have a far longer range than that during a race. Otherwise, you would have seen teams come in at the end of the second lap to have their supersofts changed for softs. Like I said, we'll see in Bahrain how good Ferrari really is. I'm predicting a comfortable Mercedes 1-2 assuming no mechanical problems and assuming the Mercedes cars aren't bogged down off the line again. "Similarly, at the end of the race, Vettel *was* catching Hamilton (just look at a race chart and it’s obvious the gap was constantly closing, even before Hamilton’s mistake), and he was doing so on softs, which much prefer really warm weather conditions — so, again, the step difference isn’t as clear cut as you assume." I'm aware Vettel caught Hamilton, but couldn't stay close enough to pass despite being on relatively new SOFT tyres compared to Hamilton's old MEDIUM tyres that had been on since the restart. You know, at the restart when people were saying they didn't think teams could go the rest of the race with one set of tyres. That was how great Mercedes advantage was. Vettel couldn't make any inroads on Hamilton on the straight despite DRS and despite being on a softer, much newer compound of tyres.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
I don't doubt that if Mercedes operates at 100 per cent every race, every race will go Mercedes's way. A difference of 0.2 seconds (or thereabouts) is still a difference. But no team or driver can operate at that level perpetually — just consider the starts Hamilton and Rosberg had, or Rosberg's first Q3 lap, or Hamilton late-race off. The question is whether the performance margin is enough to automatically claim back track position as it has been in the last two seasons, and I just don't think it is. Look at the fastest sector times from the race — Ferrari's in the ball park, which means clever strategy to gain track position should be enough to hold track position. That's what we saw in the stints before the red flag on Sunday. Also don't forget that Albert Park last year was Ferrari's weakest circuit, so if we're talking continuity, it should only get closer from here.
Not convinced
Guest
I'm with anon on this. I don't think Mercedes showed all their cards in testing and still have plenty more. Qualifying was a doddle for them and barring the odd gremlin or poor overtaking decision that breaks off a wing or something it will be Mercedes 1 & 2 at the end of the year. The only question will be whether the championship will be claimed before the last round, again, or will Rosberg and Hamilton fight to the end? I'd like to think Rosberg has learned a lesson and will take it up to Hamilton this year.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
Thanks, mate — good to have another F1 voice join us. And I'll can my Lewis glasses analysis piece!
Michael Lamonato
Expert
Tyre performance is more complicated than capitalising the step differences and assuming they make sense. For example, while the supersoft is obviously the grippier tyre, the medium excels in low working temperatures, and the track was cold (and green) for this race. Couple that with the fact that the Mercs did almost al their pre-season testing on the mediums so know how to maximise that tyre and the the W07 is generally better with its tyres, and also that Rosberg was on new mediums and Vettel on used supersofts (remember that the supersofts are at their peak for only a few laps) and you can see why the gap wasn't as large as the two-step difference would suggest. Similarly, at the end of the race, Vettel *was* catching Hamilton (just look at a race chart and it's obvious the gap was constantly closing, even before Hamilton's mistake), and he was doing so on softs, which much prefer really warm weather conditions — so, again, the step difference isn't as clear cut as you assume. Point is Formula One is never as clear as having one car that is always X amount faster than another car. You're completely neglecting the variables that make up race strategy, and then assuming something — that Mercedes wasn't really trying — because it works for your theory. Yes, Mercedes is still faster, but not by your "at least one second" claim.
anon
Guest
Rosberg, who is a vastly inferior driver to Vettel, was comfortably maintaining the gap with Vettel when Vettel was on SUPER-SOFTS and Rosberg was on MEDIUMS. And that's with Vettel PUSHING on super-softs while Rosberg was looking after his mediums. Then at the end, Vettel, despite being on relatively new SOFTS, couldn't make any inroads on Hamilton on the straight despite Hamilton being on OLD MEDIUMS that he trashed while chasing Rosberg. Seriously, what's with everyone's obsession with downplaying the dominance of Mercedes. They likely didn't even have the wick turned all the way up in qualifying since after the first Q3 run they knew they would have the front row in the bag. Mercedes has stunning pace along the lines of the past two seasons. The race showed that Mercedes is incredibly faster. All the Sky Sports "pundits" were saying in the broadcast Ferrari made a mistake. No, they didn't. There's no way Vettel could have kept Rosberg behind him. Rosberg would have been through within 3 laps if they went with mediums. We'll see how good Ferrari is in Bahrain. I'm going to go out on a limb and say front row lock out for Mercedes.
The Gurgler
Roar Guru
Great read as ever and comments too. At last somewhere to go for informed and excellent F1 gear. That doesn't involve which designer Lewis is wearing. Look forward to more as the season rolls on.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
I'm surprised no-one's really raised this before (though I'm sure GP2 would hate it). Considering the teams complain so much about not being able to test their cars, they're surprisingly quiet when it comes to testing regulations.
Michael Lamonato
Expert
It was forever my dream to write a university thesis on Formula One, but alas, I could never find the opportunity. You've done well — also, spot on. I can only assume you were marked highly!
Michael Lamonato
Expert
There's no way Mercedes has a second on anyone this year. At best it has 0.5 seconds. The ultimate qualifying result was not representative because (a) the track is not representative and, more importantly (b) Ferrari didn't complete a second Q3, when both Mercedes cars improved their times. The race then showed that Ferrari is close to an equal match for Mercedes, maybe in the vicinity of one or two tenths of a second. If you watch qualifying, you'll know what I'm talking about.
anon
Guest
I don't understand what was wrong with qualifying. The issue is that Mercedes for a third year in a row has at least a one second advantage on all their rivals. Back in 2008 there was about a one second difference between 1st and 12th.
Rodney Gordon
Expert
Qualifying changes need to be tested in lower categories before being introduced in to F1, we can't drastically overhaul the sport to have it blow up in our face time and time again. Same thing with safety. Test Halos on the GP2/3 cars first.
Nicholas Belardo
Roar Guru
It took a few years for it to actually fully come to fruition, but this is what we were all saying when the Strategy Group was formed. I ended up using it as a basis for a paper at uni, and it was all there in the writing. But then again, this whole issue at self interest has been going on for years and years, and while the format and structure may change, the teams will find something about it, like Ferrari's veto. The system needs a drastic overhaul, but then the teams will complain they are stifled too much with the regulations.