Let me get this straight … on a runway some 200 feet wide, approaching a turn, only the overtaker is allowed to use the inside 100 feet? Surely you jest. As the overtakee, if you defend your line anywhere within this exclusion zone, even with no bobbing and weaving, you’re guilty of blocking? Yeah, sure. I’m not going to calculate the vectors, but I can’t help but wonder how much of a distance traveled advantage that gives the guy who is trying to pass, especially on the main straight.

IndyCar is a series that needs some renewed credibility perhaps more than any other racing series on Earth. The outcome at Edmonton, thanks to Brian Barnhart, was not conducive to that credibility. What a waste of what is finally a surprisingly decent TV contract and a relatively intelligent CEO in Randy Bernard. I guess the glory days of CART in the early to mid-’90s will remain the unchallenged high point of the series forever, unless Bernard gets rid of Barnhart before the latter puts IndyCar back in the toilet where Tony George left it. Leftovers from the George era are not credible assets for the series. My opinion, of course. Isn’t that what blogs are all about?

For what I think is an excellent article on this subject by Robin Miller, see this.

Voodoo Bob

In an interview on SPEED TV’s Formula One Debrief, however, Full Throttle Productions’ managing partner, Tavo Hellmund, claimed that he has been “fully engaged” with FOM’s Bernie Ecclestone for quite a long time, and that this deal is not something that just emerged from scratch in the last week. Mr. Hellmund also claimed that he and Hermann Tilke, whose firm has been hired to design the track (no surprise there), have been in the planning phase of the road course for some time. Hellmund says, regarding his criteria for the track, that he wants the drivers to come through the gate and say “Man, today I’ve got to put my big boy pants on.” He wants the course to be “very fast, … more of a traditional European type track, with some elevation and some corners that will require a ton of commitment.” He also says that he has dug in pretty deep with Tilke and Associates on these requirements and expects to get about 90 percent of his dream. Sounds good to me. Let’s hope he gets his way.

This whole thing sounds almost too good to be true, but if it actually happens it should be great. Many people say “Why Texas?” but if they have available land for a permanent track, willing government and resident support, and a promoter with the desire and money to get the job done, I say “Why not Texas?” Austin, unlike much of West Texas, is a beautiful modern city in the Texas hill country. The hill country, which also includes San Antonio, is probably the prettiest part of the whole state, and they don’t call it “hill country” for nothing. It actually has some natural rolling terrain … just right for “some elevation.” And Texas is a relatively central location in the U.S., which means a good ol’ Southern California boy like me can plan a reasonable road trip to see F1 race in my country again, something I could not reasonably do if the event were in New York.

I hope it happens; and if it does, all I have to say is “Yippee! We’re back in the saddle again!”

Voodoo Bob

Apparent ambiguity in the regulations and the capriciousness of steward decisions in seasons past, coupled with former FIA president Max Mosley’s seeming unwillingness to address these issues, has caused a lot of consternation among participating teams and fans of the sport. Enough consternation, in fact, to lead to the resignation of Mosley and his replacement by Jean Todt, as well as a major overhaul of both the technical and sporting regulations that govern the series. Add the inclusion of a former F1 driver, who can provide an informed perspective to the rest of the panel, in the body of stewards at each race, and hopes were high that this season’s rulings on incidents that occur on-track during the races would be more consistent, fair, and, dare I say it, just.

While it does appear that this season’s stewards have been generally more forgiving, at least until last Sunday, the decision they rendered in Monaco calls into question whether anything much has really changed as regards consistency and justice.

On lap 75 of the 78-lap Monaco Grand Prix, Jarno Trulli and Karun Chandhok collided at Rascasse and caused the fourth safety car period of the race. This safety car period extended into the final lap, which brought into effect for the first time a new rule in the sporting regulations. Article 40.13 of those regulations states “If the race ends whilst the safety car is deployed it will enter the pit lane at the end of the last lap and the cars will take the chequered flag as normal without overtaking.” Seems pretty clear, right? Perhaps when seen in isolation, but not necessarily when seen in conjunction with some of the other new rules regarding safety car lines, restarts, and so forth.

During the last lap, the teams were advised by race control that the safety car was coming in and that the track was clear. When the safety car entered the pit lane (just after the first safety car line, but well before the finish line), course lights went green and green flags were waved. Thinking that the safety car was no longer “deployed,” Mercedes GP advised its drivers to race to the finish line, which they did, and Michael Schumacher overtook Fernando Alonso for 6th place. The stewards then went into action and pronounced that Schumacher had violated article 40.13 and, under article 16.3, he was assessed a 20-second penalty, dropping him back to 12th place and out of the points. Once again, ambiguity ruled and created massive confusion. Mercedes GP immediately appealed the stewards’ decision to the FIA Court of Appeal, and the commentary began on the world’s racing Web sites and blogs.

In recent days Mercedes has withdrawn its appeal after the FIA announced that “The problems identified during the final lap of the Monaco Grand Prix showed a lack of clarity in the application of the rule prohibiting overtaking behind the safety car…” and agreed to formulate and present amendments to the sporting regulations to the FIA World Council on June 23. “Great,” you say. “That fixes that, right?” Well, not quite. The penalty against Schumacher was not lifted and as of now he still loses five places and the six points he should have scored for finishing in seventh place (assuming the pass on Alonso should not be allowed despite the ambiguity and confusion of the incident). Some say that this is unavoidable, since article 16.3 of the sporting regulations strictly defines what punishments must be assessed by the stewards when there are violations. What, specifically, does 16.3 say? Well, here it is…

16.3 The stewards may impose any one of three penalties on any driver involved in an Incident :

a) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping ;

b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop at his pit for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race.

c) a drop of any number of  grid positions at the driver’s next Event.

However, should either of the penalties under a) and b) above be imposed during the last five laps, or after the end of a race, Article 16.4b) below will not apply and 20 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned in the case of a) above and 30 seconds in the case of b).

The proper punishment for Michael was adjudged to be a drive-through penalty, but since the incident occurred on the last lap of the race, it could not be served and 20 seconds was added to his race time. Since the cars had been under the safety car until almost the last corner, they were closely spaced and a 20-second addition to his time dropped him to 12th place and out of the points.

Many have said that the stewards had no flexibility under 16.3 and that, therefore, the punishment cannot be changed. I’m sorry, but I disagree. Why? Well, let’s take a look at incidents that have occurred this season during the races prior to Monaco:

In Australia, Mark Webber punted Lewis Hamilton and was judged to have driven over-aggressively. The penalty? – a reprimand

In Malaysia, Lewis Hamilton blocked Vitaly Petrov by dramatically changing his line four times while on the main straight. How many directional changes are allowed? One. Penalty? – a warning

In China, Lewis Hamilton and Sebastian Vettel fought for position in the pit lane, endangering not only themselves, but also the pit crews of other teams. Penalty? – reprimands for both drivers

In Monaco, Rubens Barrichello spun and crashed at Massenet and dropped his steering wheel onto the track, where it was promptly picked up and carried off by the chassis of Karun Chandhok’s HRT. Rubens has since explained that he felt he was in danger and was more concerned with getting out of the car quickly than replacing the steering wheel as required by article 30.5 of the sporting regulations. OK, I’ll buy that, but technically it’s still a violation. Penalty? – none

My point? While it may be true that article 16.3 severely limits what penalties can be assessed for an incident, it doesn’t demand that one of the specified choices in the article be applied to every incident. It apparently leaves open to the stewards whether a formal penalty will be assessed at all. Do you see warnings or reprimands in there? Yeah, neither do I, and yet those were the only “penalties” assessed for infractions until Monaco. Clearly, the stewards have the latitude to be lenient, and yet despite the ambiguity and confusion surrounding Michael’s transgression, his penalty was not only given, but also has yet to be reduced or rescinded. Perhaps while the World Council is reviewing article 40.13 it could take a look at 16.3 and its application as well.

The bottom line for me is that, while I commend Jean Todt and the FIA for relaxing the rigidity of the Mosley years by being willing to take another look at themselves and their regulations, as well as for innovations such as adding former drivers to the pool of stewards, the adjudication of the incident at Monaco is not complete in my mind until Michael Schumacher gets some true justice by having his seventh-place finish and hard-earned six points restored. Until that happens, as far as I’m concerned it’s pretty much another year of “forward into the past” for Formula 1.

Voodoo Bob

So, those of you out there who await his return to F1, don’t hold your breath. It looks to me like Kimi’s coming alive as a contender in his new home, and I don’t expect he’ll be back in an open-wheel car any time soon. He’s already got that championship under his belt, F1 has four other World Champions on the grid this year, and Schumacher is edging ever closer to the podium. Why contend with that and the endless sponsor requirements? Besides, when he’s interviewed during a rally, he sounds just like everyone else in the race.

Räikkönen’s a Finn. Some say Finns are born to race through the woods on dirt. Hyvää onnea, Kimi!

Voodoo Bob

Fortunately, another friend had already purchased the book on CD, and he offered to loan it to me. Voila! The best of both worlds. The audio version of this book isn’t the only one out there, of course. It’s currently available in paperback from Amazon.com for only $8.99 or as a hardcover for $16.29. I’ve found, however, that in my old age I much prefer listening to books to reading them. For one thing, my eyes are not what they used to be and, to be truthful, neither is my attention span. I’m far more resistant to the urge to doze off when listening to a book than I am when reading it. Besides, I can listen on my iPhone when I’m taking my daily walk or waiting at the doctor’s office for that prostate exam.

So, armed with my borrowed CDs, I began to investigate what a dog can possibly have to say about racing in the rain. Enzo the dog is owned by Denny Swift (yeah, I know the name is corny), an up-and-coming young racing driver. Enzo knows that he too could be a pretty darn good human if only he had two things…the ability to speak and opposable digits. Alas, this is not to be in his current lifetime, but maybe he can achieve it the next time around by listening and learning what being human really means. Throughout the book, Enzo proves to be remarkably adept in his ability to communicate when it really matters, despite his shortcomings, as he helps Denny navigate the good times and a remarkable string of pitfalls that threaten to completely break his owner’s spirit.

It takes surprisingly little time to get used to listening to a story told by a dog. By the second chapter or so, it seemed like a perfectly natural thing to be doing. As the story unfolds and things go from good, to bad, to worse the narrative draws you further and further in, and if the ending doesn’t move you, you’re cold and hard enough to submit a request to the funeral home for an early burial. I was pleasantly surprised by how thoroughly I enjoyed this book, and my guess is that if you’re a race fan with a fondness for dogs, or a dog fan with a fondness for racing, you’ll enjoy it too.

Thanks, Elliot, for saving me 25 bucks!

P.S. It’s down to $20.95 at the iTunes store now.

Voodoo Bob

Voodoo Bob

Voodoo Bob