sofaF1

Not being a mixologist, I don't know if you can add a twist to a Singapore Sling, but yesterday a safety car did so to the Formula 1 championship. It is unfair that the fastest driver lost the race through no fault of his own. You might say it's compensation for Hamilton's penalty at Spa, or that this is the way F1 goes sometimes, but there has been a whole season for them to get or lose points. We focus so much on the mistakes at the end, when the beginning is, theoretically, just as important. It's almost like these last four races are a penalty shoot-out, and Massa, like John Terry in last season's Champions League final, just slipped while taking his shot.

However, I have a theory that McLaren have developed a remote control that can change the Ferrari traffic lights. Of course, this is dangerous and highly irresponsible, but they have (possibly) just won both championships because of it.

In other news, James Allen told us about 3 or 4 times during the weekend about Game theory. He wrote an article about it for the Financial Times a few weeks ago, and hasn't seemed to stop mentioning it since. I wonder if anyone knows whether he is using the term correctly?

Lastly, when someone wins the championship in a few weeks, they won't be allowed to hug their teammates or their family. Compare it with this:

Rossi recruits 'lawyer' for celebration.

There seems to be a race building up in Singapore, new track, in the city, at night, with a load of flood lights. Sounds Interesting.

But what is going to happen? Pole sitter and top eight predictions for the race as usual please...........

[Edit from Alex: Sorry about the delay from me work has been crazy!

Just wanted to add the timings so everyone knows:

12:00 Today - Free Practice 3 (not broadcast on ITV)

15:00 Today - Qualifying (14:10 program starts on ITV)

13:00 Tomorrow - Race (12:00 program starts on ITV)
]

As a result of some rumblings amongst the SofaF1 Championship contestants a Stewart's enquiry has been conducted into the implications of Hamilton's penalty at Spa.

The board of enquiry can see the argument for our points to be based on the track position of the finishers because that is where they did actually finish, but surely in establishing our championship on the results of the F1 races we should therefore follow the rules and judgements of the race stewards and subsequent FIA rulings.

Yes Hamilton finished first on the track, but was deemed to have broken the rules in some way and therefore gained an advantage and penalised. If the penalty were served during the race, the end result ranking would have been the same presumably.

To extrapolate that argument to its natural conclusion: If a low order driver turned up with a 3.5 litre V10 with a couple of turbos on it and traction control, active suspension, ground effect and moveable wings (without anybody noticing) he may well finish in the points, but i'm not sure you would find anyone who would think it cricket if word got out.

So to conclude this lengthy report, the findings of the enquiry are:

The adjusted/changed result will be the one upon which points are awarded to the drivers, and so the Stewarts deem those same results should be applied to SofaF1.

Therefore, the points will need a bit of a rework if Hamilton's position is reinstated after the appeal. We'll find out later i guess.

Whilst I'm sure we all enjoyed Vettel's win, this sentence rather ruined it for me:

'Toro Rosso have Minardi DNA running through their veins'

Guess who said it? He did so about ten times.

So where does that leave the championship standings with four races left to go?


1 Fourstar 91
2 Nick 85
3 Alex 66
3 Igor 66
5 Bearded Stew 64
6 GrifF1 62

Hopefully my championship predictions sort me out at the end, otherwise i might not win this year.

Since the delay in getting these results out has been far too long, I'll keep it short.

So starting off at the new circuit in Valencia

Round 12

Stew: Hamilton 2, Kovalianen 2 and Vettel 1.
Alex: Hamilton 2, Kubica 2
Nick: Hamilton 1, Kovalainen 2, Rosberg 2
Fourstar: Massa 2 for Pole, Hamilton 1, Massa 1, Kubica 2, Rosberg 1
GrifF1: Hamilton 1, Kubica 1
Igor: Hamilton 1, Massa 1, Kovalainen 2

So… Round 12 Valencia

1 Fourstar 7
2 Bearded Stew 5
2 Nick 5
4 Alex 4
4 Igor 4
6 GrifF1 2


Then onto Spa...............


Round 13

Stew: Hamilton 1, Alonso 1, Kubica 2
Alex: Hamilton 1, Vettel 1, Glock 1
Nick: Hamilton 2 for Pole, Massa 4, Hamilton 1, Alonso 1, Vettel 1
Fourstar: Hamilton 2 for Pole, Massa 1, Alonso 1, Kubica 2
GrifF1: Massa 1, Hamilton 2, Kubica 1
Igor: Hamilton 2 for Pole, Massa 1, Kubica 1

Round 13 Spa

1 Nick 9
2 Fourstar 6
3 Bearded Stew 4
3 GrifF1 4
3 Igor 4
6 Alex 3




and down to Monza........

Round 14

Stew: Kubica 2, Heidfeld 2, Webber 1
Alex: Heidfeld 1, Webber 2
Nick: Nil Point
Fourstar: Kubica 2, Heidfeld 2, Webber 2
GrifF1: Kubica 2, Heidfeld 2
Igor: Nil Point


Round 14 Monza

1 Fourstar 6
2 Bearded Stew 5
3 GrifF1 4
4 Alex 3
5 Nick 0
5 Igor 0


Wet races are great aren't they?

Monza! Home of fast cars, a fast track and ... er... fast cars going round a fast track.

And also possibly home of rain. Will this be the kind of rain that spices up the racing or will it be the kind of rain that drags the whole championship into controversy?

Monza is a place where McLaren often look like they are going to go well and then at the last minute Ferrari pull something out of the bag.

So who will be on Pole? Who will be in those points paying positions (and what order will they be in)? Lets have your answers...

People have been talking about the difference between Vettel and Bourdais. I have to say that I've been vastly more impressed by Vettel's performance this year.

But several commentators have suggested that this is only because Vettel has more experience than Bourdais.

Is this really true? Vettel has been in more F1 races than Bourdais. 8 more. But Bourdais has actually been racing in professional single seaters for many more years.

How many champ car seasons is the equivalent of an F1 race?

Hamilton misses the chicane and passes Raikkonen. He slows down to let him back through, then overtakes him into the next corner. Due to his shortcut he didn't have to slow down as much as Raikkonen, and therefore gained an unfair advantage. I wonder, though, what a fair advantage is? Aren't all advantages unfair? Isn't that the point of them? Anyway, as far as I can see there are no rules governing what happens after you've let a driver back through who you'd unfairly passed. It doesn't say how long you have to wait before attempting to overtake them again. The team told Lewis to let Kimi past, and then would've told him 'ok, now you can overtake him'. He relied on them for the information.

The stewards, however, must have taken all this information into account, and more information than is available to us. But there's an extra point. Waiting to make a decision until after the race gives the stewards the advantage of being able to look at the big picture. What was it? Surely it was this: Hamilton was quicker in the wet and would've overtaken Kimi eventually, who anyway crashed within a lap. Should the stewards take this information into account, or focus (as they surely did) on the few seconds of the incident alone?

So as we thunder through the Ardennes Forest this weekend we will probably be be remembering that Kimi has won here for the last three races held (this is phrased weirdly simply because of that 1 year gap we had).

Spa is a great circuit. It's so long that it can be raining at one end of the track and dry at the other. So far this weekend it's been raining on and off and that looks like it might continue. Kimi, Webber and Fisi all have had offs already. There have been a few stalls too. At one point today Kubica had to get out and push his car!

So will Kimi keep his streak? Or will this off cost him too much time?

Perhaps you'd like to guess?

We'd really like to see who you think will be on Pole and also your top eight.

Kubica has recently said what a great job Massa is doing and how he thinks he should win the championship: Kubica tips Massa to win title this year. Of course, we don't know how or when he said this, or what the interviewer did to get him to answer like that, but aren't his comments a little suspicious? Could it be that he's moving to Ferrari alongside Massa next year?

This is one of the photos from my trip to Silverstone Friday practice a few months ago. I keep forgetting to post them. As I think I've already said, Trulli crashed his Toyota right in front of us. They then lifted the car and put it on the grass only a few feet away, so I acted the F1 spy and took photos of his damaged rear suspension. That weekend Toyota were being sponsored by the new Batman film.

As you may know, Rules is London's oldest surviving restaurant. Rules, however, are also crucial to the structure of Formula 1. Unlike many other sports, the rules are constantly changing, sometimes significantly (for example the recent engine modifications, or next year's aero reductions). Rules define not only how the sport operates, but how the sport, i.e. the cars, look. I'm sure F1 blogs all over the internet have been debating whether Massa should have been punished for almost colliding with Sutil. In Sofaf1's attempt to tackle less mainstream issues, we should try to stay clear of this, but before moving on to my main point I would just like to add one thing. There are people who argue: 'It wasn't Massa's fault, he shouldn't be punished'. But since when have the driver and his team been so easily separable? The reason F1 is so enjoyable (sometimes painfully so) is because one depends upon the other for their success.

I haven't seen the F1 rule-book, but I'm sure it must be a lengthy tome. The question is, should we keep adding rules until we have every situation covered? A regular steward was introduced a few years ago in order to attempt to have some sort of consistency between races. This has only been marginally successful. In expensive restaurants, you can't order à la carte, and have to choose from a set menu. Perhaps what F1 needs is a set of general principles that can apply to many circumstances? For example: 'in whatever situation, a lapped car should always cede to a lapping one', or 'if two cars crash, it is always the car who was originally behind that is at fault'. These are just my suggestions, but could the method work? Should we dispense with à la carte rule-making and switch to a set menu?