Autosport Plus 2015 Week 06 PDF

Features published on AUTOSPORT+ Feb 5, 2015 - Feb 11, 2015

Ten things we learned from the first F1 test - by AUTOSPORT staff Red Bull proved that liveries do matter - by Jonathan Noble Why F1 testing isn't on TV - by Edd Straw Gary Anderson's testing verdict - by Gary Anderson Toyota is light at the end of the WRC tunnel - by David Evans Why F1 should keep its fuel limit - by Edd Straw Marussia saga has become a timebomb - by Dieter Rencken Ask Gary Anderson: What can Honda achieve? - by

Features published on AUTOSPORT+ Feb 5, 2015 - Feb 11, 2015 1

http://plus.autosport.com/ 2015 autosport.com

Ten things we learned from the first F1 testFour days at Jerez kicked off the 2015 Formula 1 season. AUTOSPORT's team on the ground reflects on thebiggest lessons from the first pre-season test

The long wait from the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix last November to the first 2015 cars turning a wheel in angercame to an end this week, as eight teams rolled into Spain to kick off pre-season testing at Jerez.

Every year the teams declare that the former grand prix venue offers little valuable running, but every yearthey are enticed back. Perhaps the lack of revealing data is a convenience at this early stage of their cars'development.

Still, four days of getting to see the cars up close on track, and speaking to paddock figures who know morethan they often care to let on in public, always reveals some interesting pointers at this time of year.

Of course it's early days - we all know that - but here are the key trends picked up by our team that was on theground at Jerez for the first test.

RENAULT STILL HAS WORK TO DO

Jonathan Noble (@NobleF1)

AUTOSPORT+ feature: Ten things we learned from the first F1 test 2

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/feature/6375/ 2015 AUTOSPORT.com

Daniel Ricciardo's comedic hesitation on Sunday when replying about whether Renault had made a stepforward with its engines was the first clue that perhaps all was not as well as had been hoped for the Frenchmanufacturer.

"Err. Yeah. To be honest yes... we've err... yes," he said, when asked if the 2015 Renault was better. "I won'tgo into too much detail."

It later emerged that a problem with a small metallic shaft related to the ERS water pump had been a causefor concern, prompting reliability fears that ultimately compromised Red Bull's and Toro Rosso's running.

Further issues - with the battery and ERS over the week highlighted that Renault still has plenty of scope forimprovement as it heads to the next test at Barcelona.

Only when the power unit is able to run at its maximum will Red Bull know just how much of a step it hasmade in closing the gap to Mercedes.

FERRARI IS ON THE RIGHT TRACK

Ben Anderson (@BenAndersonAuto)



OK, Ferrari topped the first day of pre-season testing in 2014 too, and look how that turned out. But this yearfelt a bit different.

The Scuderia was fastest on three of the four days of running at Jerez this week, and its engine customerSauber topped the other (and was second fastest the rest of the time).

Sauber was genuinely surprised by how much better this year's Ferrari engine is compared to last year's,which was so slow and so heavy that the Swiss team failed to score a point for the first time since it firstentered F1 in 1993, while the Scuderia failed to win a race for the first time since that same season.

Many heads rolled at Maranello after that unacceptable anomaly, and it seems progress has been immediate.Kimi Raikkonen reckoned the SF15-T was a "completely different story" to last year's car, while Nico Rosbergdescribed Ferrari newboy Sebastian Vettel's medium-shod headline time on day two as an "eye-opener".

Ferrari has definitely made progress, but it expects Mercedes will remain out of reach. The hope will be that itcan exploit Red Bull-Renault's current struggles to become the three-pointed star's closest challenger whenthe 2015 season starts for real.

MERCEDES IS STILL THE TEAM TO BEAT

Edd Straw (@eddstrawf1)



The fastest Mercedes laptime at Jerez was 1.141s off the outright pace, but pay no heed to that. Few doubtthat 2014's dominant team is in anything other than a very strong position.

Why? Well, some facts. First, the fastest Mercedes time on every day was set on medium rubber (a switch tosofts should be worth, at a very conservative estimate, a second).

Second, the car looks comfortably the strongest trackside. Third, why would a team that dominated last yearhave any motivation to showboat at the top of the timesheets?

The more relevant indicators are that Mercedes was delighted with the test. Both drivers reported that the carfelt relatively similar to last year even in its unrefined state. And on day one, Rosberg completed a staggering157 laps, with the team running out of things to do, switching to pitstop practice late on.

There were a few minor problems: a water leak on day two, Lewis Hamilton's spin on a drying track on dayfour. But overall, this was as successful a first test as could have been hoped for.

"Paddy [Lowe]'s just said that has been one of our highest weeks of mileage, so it's been a surprise for us all,"said Hamilton. "It's just great to see the enthusiasm of all the guys in the garage."

With Mercedes banking almost 1500 miles of running over four days, and the car looking good, there's lesscause for enthusiasm in rival garages.

RED BULL AXIS IS STRONGER

Glenn Freeman (@glenn_autosport)



The idea of two teams with common ownership not working as closely as they could is a strange one to getyour head around, but Red Bull and Toro Rosso have strengthened their ties on the technical side ahead of2015 to take advantage of now being the only Renault-powered squads.

The relationship seemed to benefit the smaller outfit more this week, as Toro Rosso logged laps while workingaround problems with the Renault engine that stifled Red Bull's progress from the beginning of the test.

But the fact that the teams now share a common installation of the Renault power unit means that there is achance the 353 laps logged by Carlos Sainz Jr and Max Verstappen can be of use to Red Bull which onlymanaged 166 over the four days.

As Toro Rosso technical chief James Key put it: "It's a common approach. It's not a Red Bull or a Toro Rosso it's a Renault installation. It gives Renault fewer headaches to work with, and I think it will help us findsolutions quickly."

HONDA MUST LIFT ITS GAME

Jonathan Noble



Renault found out the hard way 12 months ago about just how hard the new V6 turbo power units were to geton top of, when its Jerez test turned into a nightmare.

This time around it was Honda that faced the brunt of reliability problems as its new relationship with McLarengot off to a stuttering start.

A tally of 12 laps over the first two days and the slowest lap times on each day was certainly not what theteam or Japanese engine manufacturer had been expecting.

But even with the dramas, there remains a conviction that the situation will improve dramatically over the finaltwo tests thanks to upgraded engines that are being prepared right now.

McLaren knows that the ultra-tight packaging of its MP4-30 carried with it the risk that when things go wrong,they can take an awful long time to fix, which is exactly what happened with a spate of sensor problems andoperational matters.

But equally, the aerodynamic and engine data that was being produced when the car ran offered someencouraging signs that leave the team confident it will be challenging for a decent haul of points by the timethe Australian GP comes around.

LIVERIES DO MATTER

Edd Straw



The majority of the cars running at Jerez were decked in familiar colours, even the new McLaren-Honda,which had been tipped to be launched with a very different scheme.

But the one team that dared to be different was Red Bull. The camouflage livery (which rather than renderingit invisible made the car look like a Mercedes from a distance on-track) attracted huge attention and mediacoverage when the car broke cover on Sunday.

It's a reminder that motorsport made its name being a colourful and vibrant sport. And perhaps a reminder tomore conservative teams that there's a lot to be said for putting some extra effort into a special testing livery.

So, as a note to all F1 teams for next season: get creative with your paintbrushes and vinyl wraps.

NEW CARS ARE FASTER

Jonathan Noble



There had been a lot of speculation over the winter about the step forward in speed that the 2015 cars wereexpected to make, and Jerez appeared to prove that right.

Kimi Raikkonen's fastest time from the four days of the test 1m20.841s was well clear of the benchmarkfrom last year: 1m23.276s set by Kevin Magnussen.

Of course, it's only the first test and the step forward in pace could be down to a host of things, not least theamount of fuel the teams chose to run.

But it's clear that for the established manufacturers there is a huge growth in confidence about the power unitsthey are running, which has helped lift speeds because they can be operated at the maximum.

We now just need to see if that progress follows through to Barcelona.

One other notable consequence of the increased commitment to pushing the power units was that theysounded louder too.

However, it is unclear about whether that was as a result of the topographical nature of Jerez with the soundbouncing off the hills that surround the circuit or simply because people had forgotten what the 2014engines sounded like.

ONLY SAUBER HAS SHOWN ITS HAND

Ben Anderson



As soon as Felipe Nasr went fastest on day three of the Jerez test, accusations of glory runs on soft tyres by ateam in desperate need of sponsorship abounded.

Nasr himself didn't do a great deal to dispel these suspicions, saying: "To be honest, I don't feel we're going tobe leading sessions in this car in other situations, but nevertheless it feels good to finish first.

"I wouldn't say it was maximum performance, but they were decent runs on the soft tyres.

"I think we could still get some margin on the car to improve that [the laptime], but in general it was good."

After team-mate Marcus Ericsson wound up second fastest behind Kimi Raikkonen the following day, theSwede moved to quell these suspicions by insisting the team left some significant margin with the amount ofperformance it had allowed the C34 to show.

There is no doubt the headline times flatter Sauber relative to big hitters like Mercedes and Ferrari. Sauber ismore delighted by the fact that improvements to its Ferrari-engined package have put it ahead of fellowmidfielders Toro Rosso and Lotus at this stage.

The C34 is undoubtedly a better car than its predecessor. Whether this is enough to genuinely lift it up the gridremains to be seen.

LOTUS HAS BANISHED ITS NIGHTMARE

Jonathan Noble



After a terrible 2014 campaign where problems with Renault meant it fell far short of the victory challenges of2013, Lotus appears to be back in the game.

Its switch to Mercedes power was always aimed at allowing the team a decent step forward in performance,with the clear target of being able to do what Williams did when it went from ninth overall to emerge as aregular podium finisher in 2014.

And although it's too early to say if it can reach the giddy heights that Williams managed, Jerez did at leastshow that Lotus is far away from the woeful time it had on occasion last season.

As Romain Grosjean said when asked if the new package was better: "Big-time! Of course everyone was verymuch expecting to see [this with] our first feeling of the car, as much with the power unit as with the chassis.

"Everything has been going in the right direction, so that's very positive.

"We did 50-something laps, and I enjoyed driving of all of them. We have some more bits and pieces comingfor Barcelona, but in general it's a very good starting point."

WILLIAMS QUIETLY CONFIDENT

Edd Straw



Williams kept a low profile at Jerez, with its car generally buried in the middle of the timing screens and afastest lap 1.435s off the pace.

But there's a quiet confidence from everyone in the team. Valtteri Bottas and Felipe Massa were both happywith their first taste of the car at Jerez. But neither was willing to say too much.

The Williams was a strong car last year, but it did lack downforce and the strong front-end on turn-in wasoffset by the rear being a little less stable. Massa confirmed both the stability and balance were "a stepforward", which bodes well for downforce levels even with the disadvantage of the new nose regulations.

Chief technical officer Pat Symonds played it coy, much as you would expect from someone who has been inF1 for almost three-and-a-half decades.

"I'm happy with where we are and I don't really want to answer that question in any quantifiable way," he saidwhen asked by AUTOSPORT about whether Williams had made a net downforce gain from the end of 2014 tothis year.

But he did also concede that "we have certainly taken steps that I hope will move us forward".

While the car is evolutionary, there are some detail changes to the suspension that should also help themechanical platform.

The race simulation runs later in testing might be the first real sign we get of where Williams really stands.



Red Bull proved that liveries do matterRed Bull's camouflage livery demonstrated the evocative power of shapes and colours; other teams need tofollow that example, says JONATHAN NOBLE

Seldom in the modern Formula 1 pitlane have so many people stopped whatever vitally important tasks theywere performing to do a double-take at the car that has just blasted past on its way out onto the track.

That's exactly what happened at Jerez during F1's pre-season testing kick-off when a dizzying blur ofunrecognisable white-and-black shot past.

Having not caught sight of which garage it had emerged from, it took a split-second to work out what theimposter was. In the end, the Infiniti badges were the giveaway.

This was the new, camouflaged Red Bull RB11. And it looked mighty.

Having successfully kept the lid on not only its car design but its testing-livery concept in the build-up to Jerez,Red Bull certainly caused a stir when it unleashed its stunning visual conceit.

It's not very often that an F1 team ends up doing something that is a genuinely pleasant surprise. Twelvemonths ago the shock was about how terrible the 2014 noses looked when we first got a glimpse of them;now there was a bit of awe about Red Bull actually doing something that got people excited.

AUTOSPORT+ feature: Red Bull proved that liveries do matter 14


Undoubtedly there will have been a technical motivation in running camouflage - the 'dazzle' colour scheme,first applied to shipping in World War I to conceal a vessel's range and heading, is frequently used by road-carmanufacturers to frustrate covert photography of their new models, and it certainly made it harder to pick outfine details of the RB11.

Equally Red Bull's marketing people pulled a masterstroke in grabbing the publicity spotlight. The 'zebra' carbecame such a focal point because team liveries unveiled elsewhere on the grid have proved sodisappointingly predictable.

It's all too easy to underestimate the importance of an evocative, memorable colour scheme for stirring all ofus who follow the sport. If you doubt that proposition, just take a look at some of the imaginative livery ideasthat artistically inclined fans have been posting on the internet and social media in recent weeks.

When we think back to some of the memorable and best-looking cars of the past, what comes to mind? Wedon't recall the marvels of a front-wing design, an aggressively packaged rear end or a beautifully integratedfront suspension layout.

We hark back to the black-and-gold JPS Lotus. We think of those red-and-white Marlboro McLarens from the1970s through to the '90s. We recall Nigel Mansell in the yellow-blue-and-white Canon Williams. And weremember one of the best looking cars ever - Gary Anderson's Jordan 191 in the 7-Up branding.

When word emerged that Martini was returning to F1 as title sponsor of Williams, it caused tremendousexcitement for everyone. That enthusiasm had nothing to do with the onset of cocktail hour, and everything todo with the allure of those famous dark blue, light blue and red stripes, triggering a rich and pleasing flow ofhistoric associations - from Helmut Marko and Gijs van Lennep's thunderous Porsche 917 to Juha Kankkunenin maximum-attack mode aboard a Lancia Delta HF Integrale.

Liveries are important because they can help stir the soul. They provide identity, and they are part of theemotional link between fans and the team they follow.

That's why there was such a frenzy of excitement ahead of the McLaren-Honda launch this year, as itsfollowers speculated about what colour the new car would be.



It explains, too, that while the team raved about the ultra-tight packaging and how impressive the MP4-30 wasunder the skin, onlookers experienced a frisson of disappointment as they regarded its familiar colourscheme. Critics suggested the team should have done more with the opportunity to break visually with itsrecent Mercedes past.

Even if, as has been mooted, the arrival of new sponsors may bring on a change for the season opener, whynot revert to that famous orange testing branding that got fans excited in 1997, '98, and as recently as 2005?

In recent years, as F1 has become more corporate, so too its liveries have become just that little bit lessexciting. This has happened at the same time as F1's cars have evolved to become all too similar too thanksto ever-more-restrictive regulations.

If a team wants to stand out - just like Red Bull did at Jerez - then why not be a bit bolder? The camouflagelivery may only be temporary but there is still room for creativity when Red Bull reverts to its usualblue-and-purple palette for the opening race of the season.

As F1 continues to discuss what is being termed a car revolution for 2017, some thought should be given toliveries and the way the cars are branded.

Getting cars that look amazing should be as much of a priority as 1000bhp engines, wider tyres and deliveringa bigger challenge for drivers. The designs have to excite again - to make us regularly do double-takes.

So hats off to Red Bull for offering us a glimpse of that, and reminding us why liveries matter so much.



Why F1 testing isn't on TVEvery scrap of information from the Jerez test was devoured by F1 followers. But while many want to watchlive coverage, EDD STRAW explains why this doesn't happen

Formula 1 testing is boring. Lewis Hamilton said so.

"I would be lying if I said I was extremely excited," he said at the end of the second day of the Jerez test. "It'stesting, not the most exciting period for any racing driver... want to race."

As an AUTOSPORT reader, it's safe to assume you are a devotee of motorsport and aghast at such asentiment. But there is something to be said for it.

After all, testing is very much a process that creates the foundation on which each team builds the seasonahead.

Inevitably, everyone wants to know the relative pace of the cars. But the teams have no interest in doing that.

Often the word 'sandbagging' is used. But that's a dangerous word. Mercedes and Williams, for example,were not 'hiding' their true pace...they were just getting on with the work they needed to do.

So the biggest problem testing has is that it's not a competition. There is no prize for being fastest, or slowest,and while storylines do start to emerge, the headline laptimes are worth very little.

AUTOSPORT+ feature: Why F1 testing isn't on TV 18


It's fascinating to see the brand new cars. To be at the test for all four days and glean a few early signs is agreat privilege.

But when people ask why there isn't comprehensive live coverage of testing, the answer is obvious. Very fewpeople would watch it, and a lot of those who did would find it far less interesting than they think.

Each of the four days of testing consisted of eight hours of cars driving round.

Often there were no cars driving around. Occasionally, a car stopped on the track, and even more rarelysomeone spun or went off (although this didn't happen enough even to justify more than a 10-secondhighlights reel).

Once in a while, a flatbed truck was sent out to recover something. Mechanics were sometimes seenshrouding stricken cars to prevent technical details being revealed.

There were times when it rained. And there was a memorable moment late on the last day when a boxy pieceof circuit furniture (not exactly sure what) rolled slowly onto the track exiting the final corner and triggered ared flag.

Every now and again the Honda engine, in the garage just below the media centre, fired up. That tended tolead to a flurry of people running to the window.

There was also a power cut, although that was after the end of running on Wednesday, so that was little morethan an inconvenience.

Sometimes something really dramatic will happen. In Abu Dhabi a few years ago, a dog was briefly spotted onthe track (fortunately Bruno Senna was not testing that day). And last year, the cats got in on the action.

The point is that testing doesn't have an ebb and flow like a grand prix weekend. It doesn't build to acrescendo. It's just about 32 hours of track time to be maximised.



It's extremely important for the teams, and there's plenty of interest to be had in following the coverage, be itend-of-day wrap-ups on TV, offering the chance to see the cars on track for the first time for those at home.

There's also a plethora of news to be devoured on the internet, including on this very website, and in print.What's happening is interesting and significant, but to imagine that watching eight hours of it on TV would begripping is a mistake.

After all, in the UK, Sky Sports F1 committed to some live testing coverage a few years ago, but subsequentlydropped it. There will have been a very good reason for that, based on viewing figures.

Yet pre-season testing has sneakily become part of the regular season, like three extra races by way of aprelude.

It's a positive that the circuits are able to welcome fans to the test to see the cars in person. Jerez provedpopular with them, particularly on days when Fernando Alonso was running (to use a very loose application ofthe word) in the McLaren-Honda.

But while hanging around in the pits during the first couple of hours of testing, it was frustrating to see thescreens enveloping the cars and blocking the garages.

Just across the start/finish straight, the main grandstand had plenty of fans in it eager to catch a glimpse ofthe car, but with Ferrari, for example, setting up its screens between the pit box and the pitwall, it meant thatfans couldn't even watch the car being wheeled into the garage.

That said, if you remember what testing is actually for, you can see where teams are coming from.

"While we are doing this early work, there certainly are things on the car that are not completely obvious andit's just the way we do things that we like to keep from our rivals for a bit longer," said Symonds.

"I strongly approve of the fact that once we go racing we are not allowed to put those screens there. But bearwith us a little while we use them during our test..."

The great irony is that, in terms of technical detail of the car, teams will have a vast portfolio of detail imagesfrom every rival very rapidly. Sometimes this is called espionage, but that's a misnomer.

What it actually is is taking photographs of other cars! A skilled photographer, of which there are plenty in F1,with good kit can capture extraordinary detail of a car.

After all, senior technical personnel have been known to email pictures to each other, highlighting the latestpoint of technical interest they have spotted on their car, just to let their rivals know they are watching!



In the garage, things are a little harder, so you can understand the reasoning for the screens, and thetendency to shut the door.

But, perversely, it's precisely this secrecy, combined with the fact that there's not television coverage to matchthat of a grand prix weekend, that makes testing so appealing to everyone.

In a way, it's a throwback to the old days of being a motorsport fan, when you had to wait until your Thursdaycopy of AUTOSPORT (or, if you were that way inclined, your Wednesday issue of Motoring News) to find outmuch more than the bare details of the racing.

In this time of blanket coverage, is it such a bad thing to have a period where all you get is snippets ofon-track action, photographs, and coverage via such outlets as Sky Sports and AUTOSPORT? After all, ourlive testing coverage stretched to well over 30,000 words, with news stories and features on top of that.

Sometimes, the reality of something can be far less exciting than the perception.

That's why the way F1 testing is covered is, perversely, a positive for grand prix racing rather than a negative.



Gary Anderson's testing verdictAUTOSPORT's technical expert GARY ANDERSON draws some conclusions based on the first F1 running of2015 at Jerez - and has blunt words for Adrian Newey and McLaren

It's always difficult to draw any great conclusions from testing, the first test of a new season especially so.

Most teams will have been concentrating simply on getting in some decent-length runs and some will havegone for a little bit of glory to help attract some much-needed sponsorship.

I'm going to run through the eight teams that participated in fastest laptime order.

FERRARI - A much better start

AUTOSPORT+ feature: Gary Anderson's testing verdict 22


Ferrari looks to be in much better shape than it was last year. Its laptimes in general were impressive at Jerez.

Both drivers require a car that has a very positive and consistent front end, and both appear to like thehandling characteristics of the new Ferrari SF15-T.

This is always a major asset when it comes to car set-up and development direction, so overall it was a veryencouraging test for Ferrari.

SAUBER - No harm in chasing headlines



Sauber appears to be benefiting from the improved performance of the Ferrari power unit.

As I mentioned at the start, some teams can go into testing seeking a few headlines (I've done it myself attimes!) and no doubt Sauber is doing a similar thing.

It needs to attract some sponsorship, and what better way to do that than to turn in some competitive laptimesand make sure that you end all four days either first or second?

But the car does look consistent and much better than last year. Felipe Nasr and Marcus Ericsson extractingsome performance from the C34 will give everyone at Hinwil a lot of motivation.

MERCEDES - Getting on with the job



Mercedes simply got its head down and focused on the test programme, paying very little attention to whatwas going on up and down the pitlane.

That said, at the end of day one I suspect someone on the Mercedes pitwall will have dusted down their sparestopwatch to take a look at Ferrari. Even Nico Rosberg admitted Ferrari's performance was "eye-opening".

It's always difficult to go slow in a fast car. Normally the best way to do this is to run more fuel, which meansthat the car can be driven with the same level of aggression but without delivering the laptime.

Is that what Mercedes is doing or is Ferrari going to give it a hard time this year? Is Mercedes sandbagging?

Let's wait until the next test at Barcelona to see how things unfold, but it's worth nothing that the fastestMercedes laptime was set on the medium tyre rather than the softs used by Kimi Raikkonen to set the overallquickest time.

WILLIAMS Some 2014 weak points cured



Williams appears to have made a little progress. The 2014 car was very good on corner entry with a verypositive front end, but it always looked to me like the rear was on edge.

This year's car has carried over that positive front end and the rear is better than it was.

One of the biggest advantages Williams had last year was its top speed, as the car was always fast in astraight line.

The Williams did trip the main speed trap in equal first place at Jerez, with a mark of 307.6km/h matchingMercedes.

The problem Williams had last year was that on some circuits the car just couldn't generate the downforce ofsome other cars.

The Barcelona test will be a better indication of how much of a gain has been made as the Spanish GrandPrix venue is a circuit at which laptime and downforce go hand in hand.

TORO ROSSO An underdog that could star



The team that was once Minardi has once again shown that a relatively small operation can put together a carthat runs and can be understood from the word go, even though the Renault engine problem meant that it hadto make regular visits to the pits for checks.

It has what you might call a very young driver line-up (although even that seems to be an understatement) soit would be easy to hide behind that.

But team principal Franz Tost is a racer and he and technical director James Key seem to have a clear idea ofhow to get the best out of the team.

Franz is talking about fifth in the championship and why not? The car looks promising and was more reliablethan the Red Bull.

With a development plan in place pre-Melbourne, and Renault promising an engine that can be run properlyfor the next test, this could prove to be a small team doing a big-team job.

LOTUS Confidence returning



Lotus was a bit late getting up and running. But the team had a much better start to testing this season thanlast year, when the car didn't even make it to the first test.

Lotus lost a lot of good people in the build-up to 2014 and the team was shell-shocked. It's taken a bit ofreorganisation to get the people left working efficiently, but there's a lot of skill and experience there so theteam is ready to work its way back up the grid.

The Mercedes engine is a huge step forward, but the car also looks a lot better. Last year's car was veryinconsistent and it just didn't do the same thing twice.

Once you have a car like that it spooks the driver and he loses confidence. Hopefully after getting into thisyear's car their confidence will be returning.

RED BULL Dabbling isn't enough



So why have you had to read all the way to this point before I mentioned the team that had so many dominantseasons and thought it owned F1?

When you compare the current Red Bull to Toro Rosso, you could argue that the junior team has done acompetent job while the main team has potentially dropped the ball.

Adrian Newey has lost his true commitment to the F1 side of things and he has shown he is disillusioned withthe way the regulations are going, so has got involved with other projects.

Yes, he is still part of Red Bull Racing, but the thing about F1 is that you can't just be a visitor. You either haveto be in it 100 per cent or not at all. There's no room for dabbling.

Vettel moving to Ferrari is another blow, as the team was more or less set up around him. Daniel Ricciardodid a great job last year but what will happen this year if Red Bull doesn't perform? It could disintegrate.

Barcelona will be a big test. The Renault engine held things back at Jerez, and as Renault's works team therewill be no excuses if things don't get better.

If Red Bull doesn't improve, the cracks will start to show.

McLAREN A terrible start



McLaren is difficult to judge after a terrible test.

Everyone keeps harping on about how the McLaren and Honda relationship is building. They keep telling ushow the car is so innovative that they expected all these problems.

All that is rubbish. What they really would have expected was to put the car out on the track and do at least100 laps a day.

So McLaren will be going home from Jerez very, very disappointed because it seems like a case of problemafter problem and nobody has got on top of the engine yet. The Barcelona tests could very easily be thesame.

That said, the car does look pretty good on the track. But when you are not using all the power then most carslook good...

Hopefully, I will be proved wrong because we want the McLaren-Honda fighting at the front. Barcelona willhopefully let us know where it stands.

With four days of testing down and eight more to go, my general feeling is that Mercedes will have somecloser company at the front of the field this year.

But I still don't really have a clue who it's going to be.



Toyota is light at the end of the WRC tunnelToyota's return shows that the World Rally Championship is the place to be for manufacturers who want toflaunt their aspirational road-relevant technology, says DAVID EVANS

The Frenchman was very happy with the launch strategy. His left foot had found the biting point, while hisother prodded the throttle pedal twice. Revs rose and died before settling around 3000. Right foot cocked.

Three, two, one...

Left up, right down. Hard. Fast.

Four, fat, wide, warmed Michelins spun wildly for a moment before adhesion was found, forward motionmade.

Right foot still buried, ratios were changed under pitiless pressure. The noise was stunning; crackles andbangs on overrun way more urgent than a burble.

AUTOSPORT+ feature: Toyota is light at the end of the WRC tunnel 32


And then a long corner. Any long corner. Doesn't matter which.

Aim it at the apex and bury it. Four black lines drawn across another corner of Corsica.

That was Didier Auriol winning on the French island in 1994. He was driving a Toyota. And the world wassmiling with him.

It's fair to say the Celica Turbo 4WD was never at its absolute best on asphalt, especially of the cooking-hotCorsican variety, but Auriol remembers these moments well. Savours them.

The 1994 world champion's memories of that Celica aren't dissimilar to those of his colleagues: the ST185made you work for it.

Still, it was Toyota's finest hour. In terms of rally wins and world championships, nothing else would comeclose. But the Turbo 4WD was about more than the numbers.

Done up in all its Castrol finery, it was a beauty. As well as being a beast.

Standing alongside Subaru's mundane-looking Impreza, the Celica was a winner. Even before fuel had beenfired into cylinders, it looked full of energy and purpose. And, with a 38mm restrictor and power to spare, itwas little wonder the drivers got such reward behind the wheel, while delivering such spectacle from theoutside.

That was Toyota at the height of its power. The early-doors penny-pinching had gone. The helicopters hadarrived.

And world rallying was being carried along on the crest of this wave.

Admittedly, Toyota did come a cropper 12 months later, catching an edge and tumbling into the waves whensomebody in Cologne mistook a 34mm restrictor at rest for something 25 per cent bigger once the fatedCelica GT-Four was under power.



As Juha Kankkunen told me last week "we all make mistakes".

It's fair to say the Finn has mellowed on the matter down the years.

Why this story? Why the recollection of four wheels spinning their way from Ajaccio to Corte? Because, unlessyou've had your head buried for the past week and a bit, you'll have heard the news: Toyota's back in theWorld Rally Championship.

Understandably, the World Rally Championship thinks this is quite a big deal. And I'm inclined to agree.

The good thing is that Toyota's announcement - made by president Akio Toyoda - brings to an end theceaseless speculation and pontification on the relationship between Japan and Cologne.

The Yaris WRC will continue to be developed by Toyota Motorsport GmbH in Germany before beingcampaigned by the same from 2017 forwards.

The only downside is that it is the Yaris.

Don't get me wrong, the Yaris is a very worthy car. But it's not a GT86, is it? When Tommi Makinen developeda four-wheel-drive GT86 for Toyoda in time for last year's Rally Finland, we caught a glimpse of just how coolWorld Rally Cars could be if we weren't mired in sensible, B-segment economics.

Frankly, the motor doesn't matter. What matters is that a region south-west of Tokyo called Toyota City will berepresented at rallying's highest level again.

In terms of cars and cities, the place formerly known as Koromo is right up there. It's the place where 338,875pay slips originate every month. And, the world's 12th largest company puts its extensive and globalworkforce to good use: last year it sold 10,231,000 cars.

And generated a revenue of JPY 22.064 trillion. That's a lot. A trillion comes with 12 zeros and, in 2013,Toyota Motor Corporation generated 22 of those. Granted, it's less in sterling: 122,564,263,867.

It's those numbers that make Toyota the world's biggest car marker. It's those numbers that make Toyotaworth having in the World Rally Championship.



Toyota has seen the correlation between the likes of the Volkswagen Polo R WRC and the Hyundai i20 WRCand what's being sold in the showroom. A hybrid World Endurance Championship racer is perfect forhigh-speed green credibility, but for demonstrating meaningful, understandable and aspirational road-goingtechnology, the WRC is the place to be.

For that to work, it's got to be B-segment. So sorry, no super-sexy GT cars here please. But don't worry.Stand by the side of the road not too close, obviously and you'll still be blown away by the sight and soundof the thing in just the same way all those Corsicans were when Auriol sent his Celica off the line 21 yearsago.

Confirmation of Toyota's return rounded off a pretty perfect start to the year for the World Rally Championship.A snowy and unpredictable Monte Carlo is always the best way to kick off a new season especially whenyou have a returning nine-time champion in the face of his old adversary for the first day.

But this time, there was plenty to cheer even before Sebastien Ogier steered the #1 Volkswagen Polo R WRCover the ceremonial start and Alp-wards.

Casino Square's not exactly the most conservative of places at the best of times, but on 2015's fourthThursday, the place excelled itself.

Idris Elba stepped out of Ogier's Polo, Dustin Hoffman wandered along for a look, Jacky Ickx was asfever-filled as ever and members of the Monegasque royal family mingled as the World Rally Championshipgot itself going, showbiz style.

Then David Coulthard, twice the fastest man in the world around these same streets, got out of Elfyn Evans'scar and complained about his gentlemen's vegetables.

Coulthard's a local. And a fan. He didn't need asking twice if he fancied a run through the bottom section ofthe principality's grand prix circuit. Like the odd McRae before him, Evans didn't disappoint with DC alongside.



"That was really cool," smiled the Scot. "Going into Rascasse, it was dry to damp, and as soon as we see adamp track you have to back out. But the speed he carried in there on the first lap, I was like: 'Well, we'regoing to hit the barrier there'. Not a bit.

"I've had the privilege of sitting beside a couple of handy guys before, but not on Tarmac. I've always saidrally drivers are the most skilled drivers in the world, because of the different situations they have to deal with.

"Single-seater drivers, we're the goldfish of the motorsport world in that every minute and a half we do thesame thing again. We have different challenges in trying to do a tenth of a second on every lap time andhitting those tiny margins whereas in rallying you can afford to be a bit cautious in one corner and what weconsider to be completely mental in another."

And, with that DC was swallowed up into the marvellous melee that had become the start of the WRC season.

It was around that time that it started snowing in Sweden. And it's snowed and snowed some more. Looks likethose round-one good times are ready to roll on and on.



Why F1 should keep its fuel limitAmid talk of 1000bhp engines, EDD STRAW says it's essential that Formula 1 does not lose sight of one of itsmost spectacular achievements

Formula 1 achieved a quite incredible feat last year, one that was disgracefully overlooked in most quarters,sometimes by those purporting to enjoy the technology in grand prix racing.

Last year, every car had to complete a grand prix distance, from lights out to chequered flag, on just 100kg offuel. Staggeringly, it wasn't long before some were actually short-fuelling in order to save weight, withoutpaying much of a performance penalty.

Think about that for moment. Really think about it. That's a reduction of about one-third of the fuel in one leap.Truly astonishing.

There have been suggestions that both the 100kg fuel limit and the 100kg/h peak fuel-flow limit should beremoved from the regulations as part of this agenda for more exciting cars in 2017.

Fine, remove the fuel-flow limit. In fact, that is a must. But to eliminate the fuel limit would be a mistake. Itwould rob F1 of one of its greatest achievements not just in recent years, but, at the risk of drifting intohyperbole, ever!

AUTOSPORT+ feature: Why F1 should keep its fuel limit 37


Fuel has a certain energy value. The aim of an engine is to unlock as much of that energy as possible.Efficiency is nothing more than the percentage of the energy that you are able to put to work, and in the caseof the internal combustion engine, traditionally this has not been a spectacularly high number.

Yet still F1 took this one-third reduction in fuel for a grand prix distance in its stride. There was no limping tothe finish, no running out of fuel. Just grand prix cars lapping quickly and racing.

And remember, while there is still some fuel-saving, the same thing happened with the last generation of2.4-litre V8 atmospheric engines. It's just that it wasn't talked about as much.

The equation is very simple. Fuel has a performance cost that is proportional to its weight. 10kg of fuel canadd around 0.3-0.4s per lap (depending on the circuit configuration) to your laptime.

So if you can carry less fuel, that is free laptime. If this number outweighs the loss caused by fuel-savingmeasures, you are quids in. There is always this compromise, there's nothing new. It's just that it has beentalked about more and more in recent years.

And there could be more gains to come. Speaking after the unveiling of the new Mercedes F1 car, themanaging director of Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains, Andy Cowell, pointed out just how muchpotential gain there is still to be made with the efficiency of these engines.

"The maximum power output if we get 100 per cent thermal efficiency is 1200KW plus 115kW [from theERS]," he said.

The second law of thermodynamics prevents absolute efficiency. But translate those KW figures into theeasier-to-picture horsepower, and it reveals that such an engine (without ERS) would put out just over1600bhp. So there is still room for improvement with ongoing incremental efficiency gains.

But the instantaneous fuel-flow limit that caps the rate of fuel being fed into the engine at 100kg/hour (think ofit as a speed of fuel feed, rather than an allowance), is something that can be axed.



This rule exists for a very valid reason. There is no cap on the turbo-boost in the technical regulations, so thisis the only thing that keeps the maximum engine power in check. So it would have to go if you wanted toincrease the horsepower of these engines.

It has been said that this makes the 100kg-per-race target achievable, but that's not the case. The limit wouldhave to be respected no matter what the peak power is, so it's not relevant in this instance.

But there were legitimate safety concerns. After all, the most effective way to take a straight would be to putdown as much power as you could possibly transfer to the track and get up to your terminal velocity as quicklyas you can, then coast.

So you might choose to have massively powerful engines, booting out a short, sharp burst to get the cars upto speed, then leaned back massively.

The safety concern comes in were you to have significantly different peak-power figures from car to car (i.e. acar with twice the power booting it while right behind a less potent one).

This scenario is not as concerning as it initially sounds. But if you removed the fuel-flow limit, it would be asurprise if the variations were that dramatic. So eliminate that regulation, while maintaining a fuel limit, andyou have a workable framework.

That's just a low-resolution version of the rules set, but using those two key factors, it should be possible toframe a rule that satisfies all.

Critics who come back with the argument that the amount of fuel saved is so small as to be irrelevant aremissing the point - in some cases, probably willfully.

Yes, the fuel not burned during races over a season wouldn't get you halfway across the Atlantic on acommercial airliner. But that's not the point and it never was.

But it is a clear statement of intent, an expression of potential to be part of the solution rather than part of theproblem.

You can argue it's nothing more than window-dressing (after all, how much fuel is burned carrying freight,team personnel and AUTOSPORT journalists to all the races?) but its value is way beyond that.

This is where there is scope for technology transfer. Not the simple transplanting of a bit of kit from an F1 carto a road car, but for the exchange of ideas and techniques that can have a tangible influence on road-carefficiency.

It's not going to change the world but, as knowledge always does, it has a value, particularly to the enginemanufacturers that lobbied for such a change.



Even more importantly for F1, it has genuine commercial value. Many sponsors won't touch grand prix racingwith a bargepole. While there are many reasons why not, one of them is environmental concerns.

Big companies now take corporate social responsibility very seriously. And while it's not the case that simplyhaving some 'green' credentials means the money flows in, without it the pool of available partners couldshrink to nothing.

But forget the financial side; it's the technology that impresses me.

It's not always about more power, more grip, more whatever. Efficiency has always been central to theeffectiveness of any engineered system.

And given our global situation, with climate change (and yes, in particular I'm referring to anthropogenicclimate change) efficient use of energy with technology is at the heart of everything we must do to ensure oursurvival.

But most importantly, completing grand prix distances at racing speeds using just 100kg of fuel is simply amajestic tribute to the better part of F1.

I certainly wouldn't swap that for a bit of noise.

As Williams chief technical officer Pat Symonds put it, "it's not of interest...noise is wasted energy".

Quite...



Marussia saga has become a timebombAs Marussia's efforts to get back on the grid for 2015 become a flashpoint in the F1 cost wrangles, DIETERRENCKEN unravels the story so far and assesses the team's chances of returning

With all the claims, counter-claims, accusations, denials and statements floating about, Formula 1's 2015entry procedure has - two months after the closing date and with exactly four weeks to go before the start ofthe season-opening Australian Grand Prix - descended into absolute farce, with none being any the wiserwhether the grid will comprise 18, 20 or 22 cars as Marussia (Manor) continues to press its case.

Essentially the matter is simple: on the one hand there is an entity ('team' would be a misnomer, for it consistsof a handful of personnel working on fundamentally 2014 cars in barebones, by F1 standards, facilities andwith minimal equipment) fighting for its very survival; on the other it is up against F1's convoluted governanceprocess.

As always in this complex business financial issues lie at the core. Compounding the situation is the vexingquestion of who the rightful owner of around $45million (30million) is: the original team'sadministrators/creditors, F1's beneficiary teams, F1's commercial rights holder, or the entity itself, now enteredunder a different name to what went before.

AUTOSPORT+ feature: Marussia saga has become a timebomb 42


As if that were not enough, regardless of the specific outcome - and this thorny issue will not simply disappearin a puff of exhaust smoke during upcoming months - the (interim?) verdict handed down by thepowers-that-be has already resulted in the demise of another team, namely Caterham.

In brief, when Marussia and Caterham plunged into administration in October last year after scoring but twopoints between them (by Marussia in Monaco that year) in the preceding four-and-a-bit seasons while racingunder four different team names, it all seemed simple: teams in liquidation are not viewed as fit and properentrants, and therefore excluded from participation.

However, liquidation is the final step after administration, and at that stage neither was (yet) wound-up.

'Participation' includes whatever share of F1's revenues may be due for results posted, and thus the sport'sremaining nine teams believed they were due the money by a process to be decided after three beleagueredoutfits (Lotus, Force India, Sauber) pleaded publicly to be granted Marussia's slice to prevent them sharingthe same fate. That is how it had been in the past; however, this logic overlooks four key factors:

1) Marussia saw administration looming, and entered the 2015 championship under its former entrant name,Manor Grand Prix, and with a change of chassis name to Manor prior to entering administration. However, itcovered the eventuality of not racing by making payment of the base entry fee ($500k) conditional upon itracing - with the points' premium ($10k) to follow.

2) F1's covenants allegedly permit teams to miss three races per season due to 'force majeure' (a term thathas become increasingly elastic over the years), and both went into administration three races from the end of2014. Thus they may be permitted to miss the first three races of 2015 without sporting penalty.

3) Only minor, mainly safety-related, changes differentiate the 2014 and '15 regulations, with the year-on-yearperformance differentials said to be minimal save for four clauses. Thus, with minor modifications (and the$45m), 'Manor' could, with exemptions, take to the grid with modified 2014 cars.

4) The sport's governing body, the FIA, is desperate maintain the integrity of the grid in what is, after all, theFIA Formula 1 World Championship and merely promoted by Formula One Management, a company



ultimately controlled by venture fund CVC Capital Partners.

These factors, combined with an inequitable (and, frankly, indefensible) governance procedure not only asclear as murky mud but that permits major teams to vote on the fate of disenfranchised operations, conspiredto deliver the current controversy - at a time when the EU Commission is closely examining F1's contracts.

The main point, whether 2014 cars may be raced in 2015, goes back to early December, when the strategygroup, and subsequently the Formula 1 Commission, were asked to consider a request by Marussia/Manor -allegedly proposed by Ron Dennis of McLaren - that 2014 cars be permitted in 2015 (albeit with certainregulatory exemptions) in order to preserve grid numbers.

As the item was not formally tabled, it was discussed but a decision deferred to the next strategy groupmeeting, scheduled for February 6 in Paris. Although administration is defined as the step prior to liquidation,Marussia/Manor cleverly hedged its bets by exiting administration on February 4, instead entering into aCompany Voluntary Arrangement specifically to circumvent this obstacle. Caterham did not enter into CVA,and its assets are up for auction.

But the crux of the matter is that last week the strategy group was not asked to vote specifically onMarussia/Manor's case, but rather on the concept of adapted 2014 cars participating in 2015 subject to certainexemptions from the prevailing regulations.

For the record these exemptions, stated by Graeme Lowdon to have been outlined by the FIA in a letter to thetwo affected teams in January 2015, are: Articles 3.7.9, 15.4.3, 15.4.4 and 16.2 of the 2015 technicalregulations.

However, these exemptions are tantamount to regulation change, and as such require unanimous agreementfrom the F1 commission - the next regulatory step after the strategy group, and precursor to ratification by theFIA World Motor Sport Council - as the proposal had passed the June 30 (February 28 from 2015 onwards)cut-off for a 70 per cent majority vote.

Although the strategy group operates on a simple majority basis - FIA/FOM have six votes each and each ofsix teams has one apiece, with 10 votes sufficient to carry any motion - it was decided that, due to the gravityof the matter, unanimity would be required before escalating the proposal to the F1 commission.

Why (and by whom) this unusual decision was taken remains unclear, but regardless it is doubtful whether itultimately affected the outcome given the vested interested at play. Sources advise that the FIA was pro theexemption, as were Ferrari and Mercedes - the latter perhaps to negate the possibility of having to run thirdcars should grid numbers drop - with all others anti.

With the team votes made up of 'constructors' championship bonus (CCB)' teams Red Bull, McLaren andFerrari, plus Mercedes (as a major manufacturer), Williams (via its heritage) and Force India (highest-placedteam non-strategy group team in the prior year's championship, a position previously held by Lotus), there are



myriad reasons for their positions, not least being that cashflow-challenged Force India would stand to gain asubstantial portion of the additional revenues.

FOM, too, is said to have been anti, being desperate to introduce customer cars (or three-car teams) by anymeans in order to reduce disbursements to teams, and each team fewer is one step closer to that objective.So, the numbers are clear: FOM plus four teams against (10 votes); Ferrari plus two teams (eight) - andsimple majority wins the day.

Call the vote myopic if you like due to its overall effect on grid sizes; selfish if you will due to its devastatingeffect on Marussia/Manor stakeholders and creditors, but, as McLaren's Jonathan Neale so succinctly put itduring in an interview, "in this business you eat what you kill", and the structure of F1 has long made it themost cannibalistic of sports.

Simply put, the strategy group was, on principle, voting for possible survival of one team versus almost certaindemise of three others, and, to hijack a medical phrase, surgeons cannot be blamed for blood on their hands.Yes, Marussia/Manor has every reason to feel aggrieved about the decision, but due process (as it exists)was followed and voted on. Does that scupper Marussia/Manor? Not yet...

One vital factor was overlooked in the mudslinging, and that is that in December last year the FIA agreed toconsider the 2014-car proposal subject to technical compliance (with exemptions where granted) but furtherinsisted upon sustainable business plans being lodged by the applicants - specifically in order to avoid the 'willthey, won't they?' speculation that damaged F1 during USF1's dying days in 2010.

Lowdon disputes this requirement but sources are adamant this was insisted upon during discussions, andhence the reference by Bob Fernley, Force India's deputy team principal, who put out a statement to thiseffect after the latest strategy group meeting.

Where to now for Marussia/Manor? As Fernley said in a follow-up interview, the team should reapply, usingdue process and supporting documentation to sway any vote. However, just how often should this process bepermitted? Since when does 'no' simply mean 'try again by other means', particularly with the new seasonlooming?

The other option is for Marussia/Manor to build fully compliant 2015 cars, missing up to three races if need be.After all, in a statement released by Manor GP, the team stated it "is pressing on with the development of its2015 car to ensure it can supersede the 2014 car as soon as possible".

But, the big question is whether F1's processes permit an arbitrary change of team and chassis name(regardless of circumstances) - upon which the F1 commission may rule - and whether that qualifies the teamfor its share of much-needed revenues. If not, does the trio of beleaguered teams gain?

Such decisions ultimately lie in the gift of the commercial rights holder, and the clock is ticking, as is theMarussia/Manor timebomb. For Caterham it has, though, exploded already.



Ask Gary Anderson: What can Honda achieve?AUTOSPORT's technical expert GARY ANDERSON expert answers your questions on topics includingMcLaren, 2015 nose designs and how to improve F1

What do you make of McLaren-Honda, even with its limited laps at Jerez?Parminder Sidhu, via Twitter

The car looks like a neat package and I believe it should be a step ahead of where McLaren ended up lastseason. Remember, it was the arguably the third if not the fourth-best Mercedes-engined team and as theMercedes was the best power unit of the season that doesn't say too much for the chassis.

Formula 1 is now all about the power unit and until that is up and running correctly we won't have a clue.

McLaren has got into bed with Honda and rightly so for its long-term future. But to get all this working correctlythe short-term may suffer.

AUTOSPORT+ feature: Ask Gary Anderson: What can Honda achieve? 47


What's the most innovative piece of technology you've seen on a 2015 car so far?@CassisDrinker, via Twitter

I'm sorry to say that the days of the ground effect Lotus, the Brabham fan car or the Tyrrell six-wheeler arelong gone.

The way the regulations have unfolded over the last few years makes it difficult to pick up on innovation.

Innovation is now about finding solutions to do things more efficiently and I am afraid most of that is under theskin on these cars and not for public viewing.



What's the aerodynamic difference between McLaren's nose and the Mercedes nose?Yenti van Lancker, via Twitter

Very little. The way the regulations are written, the difference between one concept and another is now verysmall. That said, it depends on what is happening downstream.

If the leading edge of the sidepods or the sidepod undercut is matched to the wake of a front-wing assemblythen you can test as many nose configurations as you want but will see very little difference.

You have to start at the front because the airflow coming off the underside of the nose and the trailing edge ofthe front wing is what the rest of the car has to work with.

When you are developing a car you need to set your front wing and nose spec first and then work your waydown through the car, optimising everything on the way.

When you have got the best from that, you start the process all over again. That's why the teams with themost money and the most people should always win, but if the small guy luckily gets it right then who knowswhat could happen.



Ferrari says it will keep as many engine tokens as possible for in-season development. Do you thinkthis strategy will work?@eggry, via Twitter

Ferrari has obviously made some improvements over the winter. The engine at the first test at least lookedbetter than last year so I think it is just hoping that what it has done will tide it over for the start of the season.

Doing this will allow Ferrari to see how everyone else has developed and what direction they have all takenand that will give it a hint for the next step.

You also need to remember these engine tokens have even more value than the money it would take tochange the engine spec, at least for Ferrari.

With money once you spend it you can just go out and try to find some more; you can't do that with theseengine tokens. Once they are spent they are gone, so keeping a few for a rainy day might not be a bad idea.



F1 is dull compared to other forms of racing. What three things would you change to add excitement?@LesRosbifs, via Twitter

As far as the cars are concerned, I would reduce the aerodynamics by at least 50 per cent, increase the tyresize (especially the rears) and increase the potential power output by removing the fuel flow valve.

On track, I would have a qualifying session as we have now on Saturday. After that is all done I would have aSaturday sprint race, shorter than we currently have - say, 150 kilometres - with the grid set from thequalifying order.

During this race there would only be six people allowed from each team in the pitlane: this is to increase thelength of time for pitstops or even remove them all together.

Points would be allocated for this, perhaps on the old 10-points-for-a-win system.

On Sunday I would have a 250-kilometre race but with the grid set by the drivers' championship in reverseorder. Same points as currently distributed (25 for a win etc).

All this would mean the cars would be harder to drive, qualifying would be important, looking after the tyreswould be a factor and being able to overtake would be critical.

Add it all together and I am positive that with a bit of sorting it would be much more exciting and givespectators two days of real action.



Drivers and Pirelli have both talked about improving the wet-weather tyres. Can they make significantimprovement?Mark Lovas, via Twitter

Mark, there are always improvements that can be made in all of the tyres. The intermediates don't seem tohave many problems, but it is the full-wet tyres that seem to be behind.

To improve these is a tough task for Pirelli because the minute there is any heavy rain the teams want to parkthe cars in the garage.

Looking at a 1m40s dry laptime, if the track is evenly wet across its length you want to be using wet tyres untilyou get down to about a 2m00s laptime, or around 20 per cent slower.

Then, it is time to fit the intermediates, which should immediately be able to do the same laptime and then asthe track dries, the laptime should come down to a 1m50s. At that point, you fit slicks.

The tyre-surface groove percentage is defined in the regulations and I think Pirelli needs the opportunity toplay with this, as well as the tread stiffness, to achieve the above crossover points.



If all of the teams (apart from Mercedes) came trying to hire you today which one would you like towork for? And why?Dermot Farrelly, via Facebook

Dermot, first of all I am officially retired so my answer is only hypothetical!

I am still a small-team man. I never saw any satisfaction in working for the oil tankers that are the big teamswith 600-800 people.

The teams that are struggling are the ones that I would like to try to help if I could. I always felt there wasnothing as satisfying as beating the big boys.





title_20150211.htmlmulti_6375.htmlmulti_6376.htmlmulti_6377.htmlmulti_6378.htmlmulti_6379.htmlmulti_6380.htmlmulti_6381.htmlmulti_6382.html

Documents

Autosport Plus 2015 Week 06 PDF