sofaF1

After all the Jenson-bashing (or criticism of the unnecessary media attention on him) we do on the sofa, I thought it should only be fair that we praise him for his performance yesterday.

He out-qualified and out-raced is teammate, perhaps out-performed his own car, did some great over-taking moves, might have been on the podium had it not been for traffic, and was honest, amusing and likeable in the TV interviews afterwards. Yes, Rubens was fuelled heavier and was slowly making his way forwards, but Jenson passed two Renaults in two laps. What's more, the focus on his performance by the itv crew was justified for once - he performed exceptionally well, and I actually wanted to hear them talk about it, and to him, at the end. Nonetheless, Driver of the Day is surely Massa?

What was Alonso talking about? Michael pulling out of the pit-lane right in front of him? Surely, though, Michael had no option: the lollipop man told him to go, so he went. Michael really couldn't see what was going on behind him - Massa was there. If anyone is to blame, it's the lollipop man who knew he had to get Michael out first. So, what was Alonso talking about? Maybe he saw a replay of Michael's slippy entrance to the pit-lane on a big screen as he was doing his warm-up lap and was just wondering what it was all about? Unlikely, but still possible...

Whatever the case, both incidents show us two great champions fighting for this year's championship right on the limit of their abilities. Today's race, and the rest of the season, can only get better.

In August's issue of F1 Racing magazine Peter Windsor suggests culling drivers if they've raced more than 100 GPs without producing any significant results - exceptions to be made for those who have been in very slow cars the whole time. Thus, Montoya was right to go when he did. The implicit message, however, is surely aimed at Jenson. Except for a couple of years, he's been in a pretty competitive car all along.

He took full responsibility for a crash that Martin says he could have easily blamed on somebody else. Is he taking too much from Mark Webber?

Steve said, "and now describing the qualifying" not "commentating". A small but interesting difference.

Also I'm upset that Martin didn't say the joke I was willing him to do at the end of his commentary (maybe he'll do it tomorrow), I thought he'd say about Alonso: "Well I guess that's put a dampner on his birthday".

Oh well never mind.

Really loads of excitement in the Qualifying. A great improvement. It was genuinely exciting as a qualifying session, so you'd have to say it was easy. But James, has been less than exciting in exciting sessions before. But today he was great - I'm not ashamed to say. He even properly corrected an incorrect call about a car being Kimi rather than De La Rosa from Martin.

Although obviously the point that Nick picked up on was an important mistake by James I thought he did do better.

James made a comparison during commentary for qualifying that was totally inappropriate. He related how Schumacher had had a 17 point deficit to Hakkinen at the half-way point of 1998 chamiponship, but by the last races had reduced it to only a few points.

Firstly, one should point out the phenomenal increase in reliability since then, and the fewer races on the calendar, but more imortantly, we should point out that the whole system of scoring changed between then and now. The reason Schumacher could close Mika down was because of the huge difference between the points awarded for first and second, and that they then only went to 6th place. Now, of course, it is so much harder to close down a big gap.

What would the situation be like if we had the old scoring system? Michael would have 67 and Alonso 86. The margin is only two points bigger, but much easier to close down.

Is Ferrari on the up? Will Renault's new package push them back to the front? Or is it all about the tires, and in that case whose?

McClaren are talking really strongly about their race chances this weekend but they haven't been anywhere for a while. Pedro de la Rosa had the fastest lap last race but where is that pace in qualifying. You'd have to say that unless we see them on the front row of the grid on Sunday we aren't going to see a win.

In all of the confusion Honda are going backwards which leaves the serious possibility that they could be overtaken by Toyota and BMW by the end of the season. This would spell big trouble for Honda racing management as not only is their arch rivalry between Honda and Toyota but also BMW have only been in formula one for a year so that might look really bad.

If it is the tires that are helping Ferrari then expect Toyota to have the edge. Especially as BMW may be on the back foot after their aero ban.

But at the front Michaels on a roll and he needs to keep it going. Massa's been getting stronger and seems like a great team player and he'll really need to be because Michael can't win the championship by simply winning all of the races any more.

But will Renault be spooked by the enforced changes to their cornering system? Will Alonso be able to keep it together. And what of Fisi? When things are difficult for Alonso sometimes Fisi will just come along and really put the boot in. And he most certainly isn't as nice a team player.

There won't be any more testing for the next three races which might turn out to be very significant.

In the game of chicken Renault are bravest. Ferrari brought their new updates to France so they could do something about them if they didn't work. But Renault are waiting for Germany to bring the update hoping that it will simply work and that nobody will have any testing time to counter it.

There are two other factors that the FIA have thrown into the mix. One is providing a last minute backwards step for BMW by banning the vertical fin (no not Kimi when he's not driving) which they had only just introduced.

The second is perhaps more crucial. The classification of the advanced dampening system unit as part of the aerodynamic system seems crazy at first but also answers a number of questions. It now seems obvious that this was the way in which Renault dealt with the V8 engines rather like the Ferrari flex wing. Which is why they were very happy to see that banned at the beginning of the season. It seems to me that a change in this crucial cornering area might well be critical. Apparently the ban has affected Ferrari in some way too but it seems to be in a far lesser extent than Renault. So how much difference will it make to lap times? It's difficult to say of course. But it might also affect reliability. Now that might really change things.

I was in Italy for the French grand prix this year. And despite being assured by the restaurant I was in that the grand prix would be shown in the end the manager seemed against it so I ran back to my hotel room and watched it there. Despite this being upsetting because it had made me miss the atmosphere which I assumed would be pretty good (especially when Ferrari won) there was one big advantage.

Part of our remit here is to criticise the itv team and I mean that impartially I mean that we wish to review and rate not damn. We hopefuly try to be balanced in our criticism and praise the things we like and ridicule the things we don't.

One of the things that comes up often is the race commentary as you might have noticed. The problem for me is that whenever I criticise it I'm minded of the comments by Martin Brundle who effectively suggested that if you wanted to find out how really difficult commentating is then you should dip the sound the next time a race is on and see how far you get before you repeat yourself or make a mistake. It's a clever point because it reminds you how difficult the thing is to do but is something not many people would actually do. I never want to dip the sound while watching the race because you might miss something vital. And of course if you watch a video with no sound then you're cheating.

But being in my hotel room in Italy provided me with the chance to try it. I had a big disadvantage over the commentators in that I did not have access to the timing screens, I did not have info being passed to me by my producer and I did not have a co-commentator to talk to, also I didn't make any notes and for some reason they didn't show the number of pit stops screen for a long time at a rather crucial part of the race when knowing who had two or three stopped would have been helpful. I spoke for the entire length of the race except for when they went down to the italian version of Louise for the interviews with the drivers. And during that time I didn't pause, repeat myself or make too many mistakes that I noticed anyway (although I did come to realise that I can't really recognise those back markers from their helmets as well as I thought). And at the end of the race I'd hardly touched on the Montoya story because there was so much going on although apparently according to James it was a boring race. It was difficult to do but with the assistance they have it would have been easier and I found that whenever I couldn't add some insight I would keep talking by simply describing what I could see rather like a football commentator or who was that guy again? Oh yeah Murray Walker.

So yes it's tough but in the end James shouldn't be given too much slack because with no warning, with no notes, no help and no timing screen I did a better job and had fun doing it.

I think it's almost impossible for us as outsiders to know if someone like Rosberg is going to be great. Even if we were given all the telemetry that the teams have we probably wouldn't know how to read it correctly. So, our predictions are more guesses based on the little information that we have more than anything else...

Nonetheless, I have a feeling that determination is a key factor in making a champion. Every driver on the grid, except the pay-as-you-go ones, are exceptionally talented. What separates them, I believe, is that quiet, but fundamental, determination both that they are the best, and that they will show everyone they are the best. I think it's a strange combination of humility and belief, honesty and delusion, that makes Alonso and Schumacher great - at times one or the other element will eclipse the other, but it is the balance that is important (and that's what Webber doesn't get right).

Like Stew says it's normally the best car that wins, but I think great drivers also have an ability to motivate a whole team, and thus make the car better. This is where I think Raikkonen fails. I've always liked him, but have in the last year or so begun to doubt his greatness - and it's this ability to motivate I think he lacks.

Maybe all of our theories added together expain what makes a driver great, but even more interestingly what makes a great sportsman foul up, like Zidane in Berlin, and Schumacher at Monaco?

If you want to know what Webber would look like as a McLaren driver (as has been speculated by someone I think) take a look at de la Rosa, the similarities are uncanny!


The MON MOY MOT graphic was used much sparingly in the race which pleased me greatly, only twice I think and both times to show positions relative to pole.


The biggest rant from the Sofa over the weekend though came during qualifying. Once again sparked off by a commentator.

Jenson Button had failed to make it through the first qualifying session ending up 18th or something which provoked the nearest thing you might get to a torrent of abuse (from commentator A) directed to towards Honda, something like "Take a look at yourselves Honda, take a look at yourselves" presumably because they hadn't provided Button with a car that would go very fast.

Just as he was saying this though, Rubens in a presumably identical Honda slipped in a lap which moved him out of the first session drop zone.

Nothing wrong with a bit of emotion, indeed in these very pages it has been encouraged in recent months, but in this case it seemed to me to be completely misplaced.

Now I don't want to appear to be having a go at Button but blaming Honda is probably not fair. Sure they've got plenty of work to do, but the fact is that Rubens made it go fast enough in that session and for whatever reason Jenson didn't.

I'm glad you have expounded your thoughts on this particular subject Al. I have for a while now been attempting to drag a few scattered elements along a similar line together but always seem to end up having a rant about something!

Generally (I think) history will show that the world championship winners were driving the dominant car. This what you would expect of course, much is always said about having the right package, engine, chassis, tyres, driver etc and you do need all these elements to consistently win and score points over the long haul of an entire season. Sometimes though people will almost dismiss the role of the driver and say things like "well he was in the best car though" if he does well.

Again generally, I think drivers from lower formulas show some talent, win races and championships and get a break into F1 with a midfield or lower team.

They then have the chance to prove that they can cut it in F1 and if they do show ability then chances are a top team will sign them after a year or two, and usually even if that top team doesn't have the dominant car at the time it will still be capable of winning in some situations, and won't be long before the team get the edge again.

Even as recently as 2003, all four top teams, Williams, McLaren, Ferrari and Renault won races and Williams, McLaren and Ferrari were all in the hunt for the drivers championship.

But I digress…

A good driver though, can still show that they are good even in a bad car. All the drivers on the grid must be have some talent to get there in the first place, but they don't all show that extra sparkle of greatness. All the cars are fast too and in the old days to qualify for the race all the cars had to lap within 107% of the pole position time. I've not heard this referred to recently and I assume it doesn't directly apply now with the fuelling situation in qualifying. Please correct me if I'm wrong!

I think the point I'm trying to make is that even the slow cars are fast enough for a great driver to upset the grid or the finishing order a bit. All the historical greats were able to find grip where seemingly there was none, especially in the rain, and consequently haul a car round faster than expected. Maybe with the aerodynamics these days it isn't that easy, but truly great drivers will still be able to make a difference.

I remember talking to Nick a few years ago about Mark Webber. He had been doing well in Formula One, he had been getting known and at the time he was making particular waves because his driving style so suited being a single lap qualifier. There was a moment when I saw an interview with him and it was a revelation, he had crashed off from the track and everyone watching had though that the car had let go somewhere in the turn. And yet when he was interviewed by Louise (or somebody) he said clear as a bell, "no it wasn't the car - it was my fault, I just missed the apex".

It was an amazing statement from a Formula One driver and I remember talking to Nick and Stewart here and saying that this one incident was a sign that Mark was World Champion material. I argued at the time that there was something in the bravery of that honesty, the fact that he was willing to admit that it was his fault that would make him capable of taking things to the top. Both Stewart and Nick tried to dissuade me from my position. Stew talked about the fact that (as I remember it) he was a Truli in the making, fast on a one lap but couldn't keep it together in a race. And Nick made the point that stuck with me I think, he said something like "you're being an idealistic fool, this doesn’t mean that he's honest it means that he's week. If he's blaming himself then it's not a sign of character in Formula One it's a sign that he's just trying to please somebody else. And anyone who is only doing things for someone else doesn't care enough to win". It was something like that anyway.

I've been trying to gauge how right the two of them have been ever since. I knew the moment I'd calmed down (say the next day) that I'd been wrong about him. I knew really deep down that I'd called it right when I'd seen him the first year that he'd be splashy but not championship material. I'd like to take this opportunity to say: "yada yada Kimi when nobody believed me, yada yada Alonso when nobody had noticed, yada yada Monterio when - hold on… getting a bit ahead of myself". But the point is this was a miss read based on psychology rather than something I'd seen on the track - probably a mistaken thing to do. Although you do have to pay attention to that kind of stuff because the splashy drivers (Montoya is a great example, Ralf and Fisi as well) are not always the ones who will win championships. They often seem to get bored if they aren't able to do something that would make people talk about them and then they seem to fall asleep in the race (Not literally James). So paying attention to the psychology of the driver is important.

In this case you would assume that you would get two kinds of driver, the ones that say honestly what happened: sometimes they say it was their fault and sometimes they say they think it was somebody else's fault, and the other type who always say it's somebody else's fault. But actually it turns out that Mark Webber is the only driver in the first camp and in fact he isn't being mentally hard by being willing to blame himself he's being weak because he blames himself even when it isn't always his fault (he's getting a bit better at this though). And almost all of the other drivers fall into the second camp. They fall of the road and suddenly it's the engineers fault or another drivers fault or a small bird flew in front of them and they had to move out of the way. There is always somebody else to blame and if it's so obvious that they did it on purpose then they will fall back on the old favourite of "it was just a racing incident I guess".

The thing is that there is another camp of driver who don't fall into either side of the blame game (or at least not often). And funnily enough they are Kimi, Alonso and Michael. Listen to what they say and it's always, "we're not really sure what happened. I haven't seen the tape yet. I have to talk with my engineers to be able to fully say exactly what went on". It doesn't blame anyone which is good if you want to keep your engineers on side, and presumably that's quite an important thing.

So with all of that in mind what do we make of the comments to come out of Nico Rosberg yesterday? Rosberg backs driver coaching it's a very interesting point and it's actually quite a brave thing to say. I've often wondered about the coach thing in Formula 1. They often do have coaches who deal with the drivers fitness and mental toughness (which is probably more important in F1 than any other sport). But what about working on reactions, turn in, watching the repeat with the driver and focusing their mind on why they are missing that apex each time. Who does that? Well apparently nobody.

I've been trying to decide about Nico all season, is he all flash and no bang (as Martin might say) or is he indeed the real deal? It's very difficult to tell while all of the glare is on him. People keep saying too much about him and it's difficult to see for yourself (like you sometimes can with a neglected backmarker). But this is one of those things that made me think - hey he's very brave to have said that, I respect that, that probably means that he can be world champion some day. But am I wrong? Am I falling into the Mark Webber trap again? Is it really some kind of cry for help saying that despite what everyone is expecting of him he knows in his heart that he isn't good enough?

Has Rosberg got that special something?

Perhaps it's a bit late to reminisce about the loss of Juan Pablo, and I never particularly thought he was a great driver, but seeing the lack of overtaking last weekend in France did make me miss him chucking his car around and lurching it into corners later than anyone else, only a lap after James had said you can't overtake there, as if he was playing a video game on invincible mode. My favourite moments?

Spa a few years ago and his two (or three?) moves down into the Bus stop. I think I remember him actually pushing Michael out of the way.

Also, the fastest lap ever in a Formula 1 car which he performed at Monza. That was mind-blowing stuff.

Looking at the comments from Renault in the shape of Flav I wonder if perhaps bridgestone have come back to the top.

The natural conclusion from a Ferrari return to form is to look at the engines or the new parts being brought to the car and at first look that appears to match. We all assumed that Bridgestone didn't win at Indy but that Michelan in their need not to make the same mistakes again went too cautious and lost. And we also know that Ferrari brought a load of new parts to France. So far so good.

But watching the race last weekend one thing grabbed me instantly - Ferrari are doing something new with their tires. You could see that on the degraded tires at the end of the race. They had been trying something new. Now I will say that I wasn't able to tell if this means the tires have improved of if it is that the update on the Ferrari itself allows them to use the Bridgestone better. But in a way it doesn't matter which. It just means that Renault are going to have a lot of work on their hands if they are going to avoid Ferrari beating them for the rest of the season. Maybe that's why Flav seemed so uncharacteristicly upset. Either that or his kidney stone was giving him gip.

It seems that Indianapolis was just a one off and that Renault and Alonso might be back on top again this weekend. But Ferrari have definitely closed the gap. BMW still seem competitive, and De la Rosa is a good racer new in the McLaren. So, for pole I'm going to go with Schumacher, and the race:

1. Alonso
2. Schumacher
3. Fisichella

My crazy prediction of the week: De la Rosa to lose his front wing on the first lap at the Adelaide hairpin, but make a charge back into the points after that.

Hopefully Alex will find an internet cafe in Italy and send us his predictions!

So Montoya's out of F1 and off to Nascar!

To be honest this stif doesn't quite sort out much as he hasn't really been linked with any of the big drives. His heart really doesn't seem to have been in F1 this year so the switch probably makes sense.

In many ways I'll miss him as I do whenever a driver leaves F1. You've learnt about them and worked out their quirks and so you mind when they go. I've never really gelled with Montoya however, I like him as a person but on the track he's never really lit my fire.

So how long will we have to wait or Kimi to decide? (or announce his decision)

Honda / BAR has never been the same since David Richards left. He turned the team around and made them move forwards but he wasn't given enough time to see what he'd done come to fruition. The same is true of his time at Renault. When he was there he had even less time to see what he had done.

But with Prodrive he'll be his own boss and won't suddenly get ousted mid season.

If you were Dave Richards and you were looking for some employees, wouldn't you try and find say for example a disgruntled technical director that you'd liked and had really got on with from your Honda / BAR days like Geoff Willis? And wouldn't you go and find a former Renault Technical Director Mike Gascoine who also is out of a job recently and looking for direction, he worked with Dave Richards at Renault (not sure how they got on).

The reduction in form in Honda came one year after Richards left, so basically a really good car was designed under his direction and then after he left the good car he'd built flattered his successors.

So Prodrive won't join F1 until 2008 but he'll be needing his technical people in place as soon as he can get them. So expect at least one of either Geoff or Mike. If it's one it's likely to be Geoff, but it could be both. I think they both know how to get a fast F1 car built for less money than you'd expect. I think maybe the reason both of them have done less well in the last couple of years is because their bosses have been able suddenly to throw money at any problems that they have.

It's worth noting that all of this might be for naught, because by 2008 although they might have a great car it is also the year that Jenson's contract will be up for renewal with Honda so Dave might ruin it all by hiring Jenson.

The look on Michael's face said it all. He loved winning that race so much that I think it will refresh and reinvigorate his season. Sure the tires were a factor but there is a massive aero upgrade coming to the Ferrari in two weeks. Maybe he'll be able to keep on top of things. Although you'd have to say that Renault and Michelan will want to win in France quite badly.

On a personal level I will be sitting in a bar in Italy watching the race so I think I'll be rooting for the Ferraris or at the very least the resurgent Fisi or Truli.

On the commentating front I think Truli was a deserving driver of the day. And while James still made mistakes, and still said stupid things. He did seem more excited this week. But then it's easy to get excited when the racing was that much fun.

Did you spot the new graphic?

It was for when two cars are racing each other through the pit-stops. It showed a map of the track and where the second car was on the lap - giving us a great idea if a driver would retain/lose their place. I think they only showed it for Coulthard/Liuzzi and Ralf/Alonso, but it was still very good, and would be great for when the leaders are racing for position.

...England have crashed out of the World Cup, how long will it be before somebody says on today's program, "Well with England out of the World cup this is your best chance to see an English chance of success, although I'm not sure how well Jenson Button is going to do today".

If somebody does it will be completely ignoring the chances of Andy Murray in the tennis therefore making it wrong as well as irrelevant - but I still bet somebody does it.