Homologation. Crazy word, crazy concept. When I first heard Max Mosley pompously rolling it around in his mouth at a press conference I almost ruptured something inside (as I did when I first heard Lloyd Grossman coin the term "Tudorbethan" on Through The Keyhole).
Sadly though (and in a large part due to Mosley and the FIA), F1 is often now less exciting to watch than Through The Keyhole, and homologation could help drag the sport further into some new kind of dumbed-down dark age.
Homologation; the freezing of engine development, is yet another gem in Max's plans for the utter ninnyfication of the sport - and now apparently something as inevitable as it is undesirable.
The original arguments on freezing specifications and altering the longevity of engine were always framed as 'cost saving'- a worthy, yet probably untrue and certainly improbable justification.
The cost per unit of an engine is nothing compared to the full-blown development costs of an engine package. By moving his very very expensive goalposts around from v10 to v8, to lasting two weekends, then one, and to now move to a stage from whence they are frozen, Max clearly doesn't bring down costs - the budgets of small countries could probably be swallowed up in that kind of work.
Huge lunges at development and redevelopment against radically shifting rules are surely far more costly than ongoing development in a single direction.
Homologation seems yet another shift towards some peculiar Mosley-esque vision of a sport that dares to be the pinnacle of its kind by cutting back on technology, power, innovation and ooomph.
Yes... Ooomph. That thing certain car manufacturers refer to as Va Va Voom. F1 used to have it in spades - and by definition it should continue to have it in spades... bigger spades each year quite frankly.
What next? Limited V4s? Dragging down engine power and technological imagination may work for some things (though I have no idea what) but that doesn't make it right for F1. That way madness lies: It's already a sport, and it's called lawnmower racing.
To some, the 2008 landscape may be fantastically rational and as sensible as a pair of nylon slacks, but that's not why I watch F1. And as far as I'm aware it's not why most of us watch F1. To me its future looks pretty backward. If it regresses any further, it'll probably be classed as "Tudorbethan".
Sep 4, 2006
Aug 28, 2006
Button It!
When Jenson Button won his maiden Grand Prix victory in Hungary, there was talk in the media of him getting "the monkey off his back". As monkeys go, it must have been about the size of King Kong's dad - and ironically it was largely placed there by the media and press themselves.
I don't think I know of any other British F1 driver who has had to endure the constant pressuring and prodding Button has received over the past seasons. Not Hill, not Mansell, not Hunt... Nobody.
The press have undoubtedly become more hyperactive, cynical and bruising in their treatment of sports stars and celebs over recent years, and it must surely be unenviable to not only have to excel in what you do but also traipsy through the minefields of the British media's ever more spiteful 'Build em up, Knock em down' mentality every day of your life.
Button has so far managed remarkably well (a couple of self-induced PR disasters aside); and you can only hope that his first GP win isn't a cue for them to pile on more pressure.*
I used to think Button was little more than an ego in overalls (and there's nothing wrong with ego in itself - obviously you need it in spades in this sport). But I've softened. Over the past year or so I've warmed to him and even felt quite sorry for the coverage he gets.
When I say 'coverage' I include 'favourable' coverage. So complete is ITV's craven love-in with him in its F1 programming that a number of my friends actually refer to it as the Jenson Button Show. And that's a great shame as it alienates people who would like to like him.
Race after race, coverage on telly and in the papers revolves around him while the title battle lies elsewhere: it's as if there's some appalling fascination with building him up every fortnight just to beat themselves up when it all goes skew-wiff; Hungary being a very welcome change.
At some point you can imagine that Jenson courted the media to raise his profile and PR. And probably rightly so: Anthony Davidson might well have a race seat by now if he were a better media whore and PR nut.
The problem with attracting all this attention though is these things always turn out very Faustian. The press don't court him because they love him, they do it because he's useful to them.
He'll be equally useful as a hate object when they tire of him too. Hopefully Jenson and his advisers are now skilled and mature enough to rise above all that nonsense as they shift from 'he'll never win' to 'one win wonder' to 'F1's great briton' to 'F1's brit has-been'.
As they surely will.
(*Footnote: True to form, ITV's Turkish GP coverage lurched onto the screen with a huge great Jensonvision tribute that lasted the best part of twenty minutes. Way to go guys!)
I don't think I know of any other British F1 driver who has had to endure the constant pressuring and prodding Button has received over the past seasons. Not Hill, not Mansell, not Hunt... Nobody.
The press have undoubtedly become more hyperactive, cynical and bruising in their treatment of sports stars and celebs over recent years, and it must surely be unenviable to not only have to excel in what you do but also traipsy through the minefields of the British media's ever more spiteful 'Build em up, Knock em down' mentality every day of your life.
Button has so far managed remarkably well (a couple of self-induced PR disasters aside); and you can only hope that his first GP win isn't a cue for them to pile on more pressure.*
I used to think Button was little more than an ego in overalls (and there's nothing wrong with ego in itself - obviously you need it in spades in this sport). But I've softened. Over the past year or so I've warmed to him and even felt quite sorry for the coverage he gets.
When I say 'coverage' I include 'favourable' coverage. So complete is ITV's craven love-in with him in its F1 programming that a number of my friends actually refer to it as the Jenson Button Show. And that's a great shame as it alienates people who would like to like him.
Race after race, coverage on telly and in the papers revolves around him while the title battle lies elsewhere: it's as if there's some appalling fascination with building him up every fortnight just to beat themselves up when it all goes skew-wiff; Hungary being a very welcome change.
At some point you can imagine that Jenson courted the media to raise his profile and PR. And probably rightly so: Anthony Davidson might well have a race seat by now if he were a better media whore and PR nut.
The problem with attracting all this attention though is these things always turn out very Faustian. The press don't court him because they love him, they do it because he's useful to them.
He'll be equally useful as a hate object when they tire of him too. Hopefully Jenson and his advisers are now skilled and mature enough to rise above all that nonsense as they shift from 'he'll never win' to 'one win wonder' to 'F1's great briton' to 'F1's brit has-been'.
As they surely will.
(*Footnote: True to form, ITV's Turkish GP coverage lurched onto the screen with a huge great Jensonvision tribute that lasted the best part of twenty minutes. Way to go guys!)
Aug 21, 2006
Instant Car-ma: Punishment & Just Desserts
I got to thinking about summary justice when re-watching a 'Season Review' of 1982 a few days ago. If you're familiar with the season you may recall an incident between Nelson Piquet and Eliseo Salazar at Hockenheim...
A simple lapping move came unstuck when the Chilean clumsily nurfed Piquet straight through a tyre barrier. The Brazilian leapt out of his car and flew at Salazar in a spectacularly inept hybrid of kick-boxing and bitch-slapping. Fantastic stuff.
I couldn't help but think that you simply don't see that kind of thing anymore. More's the pity. The closest we got recently was Schumi rapping on Sato's helmet at Spa last year, telling him he "needed therapy".
And given how drab and dull the 'racing' tends to be these days, surely we should be glorying in any action that we can salvage from the sport. We should even demand that incidents and disputes are settled in public for our entertainment, not by stewards behind closed doors.
Surely the Scott Speed Australian GP episode would have been better settled Springer-style; Speed sending the 'bleep' machine into overdrive with rabid tirades, till DC jumps up from his chair and lands a Glasgow Kiss on the insolent upstart and gets dragged away by bouncers in front of whooping fans?
Springer, Trisha, Kilroy, Judge Judy... there are dozens of summary justice formats that would be perfect for settling F1 disputes. All of them more exciting than any race this year.
Kilroy's whispering, patronising tone would have been perfect for defusing Michael's Monaco faux-pas; the orange-skinned presenter sidling up to him, jamming a microphone in his petulant face and saying, "Hhmmmmkay, they all say you're a cheat: How does that make you feel?"
And can you imagine how effective a crowd invasion of the podium in Austria 2002 would have been in helping inform Ferrari's number one driver and strategists on the pros and cons of team orders?
Justice in F1 has certainly improved in both visibility and consistency with the introduction of permanent stewards, but there's still a long way to go as the oddly matched penalties for Alonso and Schumacher at Hungary clearly showed.
The more immediate, open and impactful that a penalty can be, the better: they never impede genuine racing and sportsmanship - but simply reinforce the line over which you don't step.
And if they could find a way to bring back the kick-boxing too, then I think the sport can only benefit.
A simple lapping move came unstuck when the Chilean clumsily nurfed Piquet straight through a tyre barrier. The Brazilian leapt out of his car and flew at Salazar in a spectacularly inept hybrid of kick-boxing and bitch-slapping. Fantastic stuff.
I couldn't help but think that you simply don't see that kind of thing anymore. More's the pity. The closest we got recently was Schumi rapping on Sato's helmet at Spa last year, telling him he "needed therapy".
And given how drab and dull the 'racing' tends to be these days, surely we should be glorying in any action that we can salvage from the sport. We should even demand that incidents and disputes are settled in public for our entertainment, not by stewards behind closed doors.
Surely the Scott Speed Australian GP episode would have been better settled Springer-style; Speed sending the 'bleep' machine into overdrive with rabid tirades, till DC jumps up from his chair and lands a Glasgow Kiss on the insolent upstart and gets dragged away by bouncers in front of whooping fans?
Springer, Trisha, Kilroy, Judge Judy... there are dozens of summary justice formats that would be perfect for settling F1 disputes. All of them more exciting than any race this year.
Kilroy's whispering, patronising tone would have been perfect for defusing Michael's Monaco faux-pas; the orange-skinned presenter sidling up to him, jamming a microphone in his petulant face and saying, "Hhmmmmkay, they all say you're a cheat: How does that make you feel?"
And can you imagine how effective a crowd invasion of the podium in Austria 2002 would have been in helping inform Ferrari's number one driver and strategists on the pros and cons of team orders?
Justice in F1 has certainly improved in both visibility and consistency with the introduction of permanent stewards, but there's still a long way to go as the oddly matched penalties for Alonso and Schumacher at Hungary clearly showed.
The more immediate, open and impactful that a penalty can be, the better: they never impede genuine racing and sportsmanship - but simply reinforce the line over which you don't step.
And if they could find a way to bring back the kick-boxing too, then I think the sport can only benefit.
Aug 14, 2006
Are The Days Of Passing Past?
To me, one of the saddest indictments of modern F1 is Fernando Alonso's post-race comment at the European GP: "After my second stop, I just turned down the engine to look after it for next weekend... I think second place is a fantastic result from this race."
Well, quite frankly, I don't. I think it's a cop-out and a disgrace: it cheats Alonso's fans and everyone elses'. Have they paid good money to see their heroes sit back and tootle along when they should be roaring on to the flag? No - patently they have not.
Can you imagine the outrage there would be if David Beckham said "Well, we'd scored that first goal Desmond, so we thought we'd just arse around for the rest of the match... you know, take it easy like. Brilliant, eh?"
I can - and if he did, I'd be first in a very long queue to kick him in the shins. And I don't even follow football. But if any sportsman feels that it's somehow okay to insult their fans so brazenly, then I'm sorry but they need a very serious reality check. Involving slaps.
The current lack of full-on racing and overtaking isn't really Fernando's fault of course. It's the fault of engine and tyre rules, aerodynamics, carbon brakes, all kinds of things. Most of which can be laid at the big, posh, Parisian doorstep of the FIA.
It's their regulations that continue to allow, and encourage, passing in the pits - and race strategies that avoid any actual 'racing'. If they can't understand what a disappointment that is to the average fan then they don't deserve to run the sport.
Reducing downforce whilst re-introducing slick tyres for more mechanical grip is all very well, but the real clincher can only be the outright ban of traction control and similar electronic driver aids, making all crucial manoeuvring a matter of driver skill.
The FIA also apparently plan to bring in a split rear wing, though designers from the teams seriously doubt its effectiveness. Still, at least it was notable as one of those few occasions when the FIA actually asked for the teams' opinions before completely ignoring them.
Just as crucial as the cars are the circuits: how often this year have you heard commentators say "this isn't an overtaking circuit"? Well if it isn't, then why is it on the calendar? Someone needs to get an expert group of drivers renowned for 'racing' together to make them good overtaking circuits.
Let's face it: who should know better how to do that? Overall the sport surely still needs serious measures to improve itself if it's going to survive. And wouldn't be great if it were saved by its stars rather than its masters?
Well, quite frankly, I don't. I think it's a cop-out and a disgrace: it cheats Alonso's fans and everyone elses'. Have they paid good money to see their heroes sit back and tootle along when they should be roaring on to the flag? No - patently they have not.
Can you imagine the outrage there would be if David Beckham said "Well, we'd scored that first goal Desmond, so we thought we'd just arse around for the rest of the match... you know, take it easy like. Brilliant, eh?"
I can - and if he did, I'd be first in a very long queue to kick him in the shins. And I don't even follow football. But if any sportsman feels that it's somehow okay to insult their fans so brazenly, then I'm sorry but they need a very serious reality check. Involving slaps.
The current lack of full-on racing and overtaking isn't really Fernando's fault of course. It's the fault of engine and tyre rules, aerodynamics, carbon brakes, all kinds of things. Most of which can be laid at the big, posh, Parisian doorstep of the FIA.
It's their regulations that continue to allow, and encourage, passing in the pits - and race strategies that avoid any actual 'racing'. If they can't understand what a disappointment that is to the average fan then they don't deserve to run the sport.
Reducing downforce whilst re-introducing slick tyres for more mechanical grip is all very well, but the real clincher can only be the outright ban of traction control and similar electronic driver aids, making all crucial manoeuvring a matter of driver skill.
The FIA also apparently plan to bring in a split rear wing, though designers from the teams seriously doubt its effectiveness. Still, at least it was notable as one of those few occasions when the FIA actually asked for the teams' opinions before completely ignoring them.
Just as crucial as the cars are the circuits: how often this year have you heard commentators say "this isn't an overtaking circuit"? Well if it isn't, then why is it on the calendar? Someone needs to get an expert group of drivers renowned for 'racing' together to make them good overtaking circuits.
Let's face it: who should know better how to do that? Overall the sport surely still needs serious measures to improve itself if it's going to survive. And wouldn't be great if it were saved by its stars rather than its masters?
Aug 7, 2006
"Our Survey Says..."
There can be few things in this godforsaken life more unwelcome than random market surveys... Explosive diarrhoea perhaps. Accidentally slamming your bits in a filing cabinet, or fracturing your coccyx. Or possibly the idea of ITV's James Allen following you around with a microphone, commentating on your entire life. But probably not much else.
One exception though, would have to be a survey about your life's passion, which purports to be useful and interested in your opinion but is nothing of the sort. Say hello to the FIA/AMD 2006 Survey of F1 fans.
At such a crucial and pivotal time in the sport's history you'd have thought a definitive and official survey of fans might weigh heavily on matters of purpose and principle; on the sport itself. But no. What we got was a succession of questions about podcasts and mobile phones.
Whether we download boredomcasts of the latest joyless, life-sapping F1 processions onto our watches or whatever is frankly irrelevant compared to whether we want overtaking and thrills and racecraft, or whether we should be allowed to remove Max Mosley by popular vote.
Given that last year's survey unsurprisingly identified the Spa circuit as a massive favourite amongst F1 fans, you'd have thought any responsible and responsive sporting body would not then allow that circuit to be thrown off the following year's calendar.
But you'd be reckoning without the spectacular ability of F1 to shoot itself in both feet whilst stabbing itself in the back (and probably a few other self-destructive cliches on top of that). So we lost Spa and yet another lesson from the 2005 survey went unlearned.
And what's this fixation with mobile phones? - they're for ringing people (or subjecting them to craptacularly annoying music on public transport if you live where I do, apparently) - not for watching GPs: can you honestly say there's any value in pratting around with mobile when they can't even get TV right?
If I'm going to be asked about how I want to watch F1, I want to be able to give answers like "in full, no adverts", "on a dedicated interactive TV channel", "all race weekend", and "on the edge of my seat, which currently isn't possible thanks to you idiots."
Sadly though, the FIA/AMD survey - as it was last year - appears to be little more than an exercise in getting the likes of you and me to tick boxes once they've already decided what outcome they want.
If you filled in the survey, then what can I say? that's 15 perfectly good minutes of your life you won't ever be getting back. It may seem cynical to take such a dim view when our opinions are being asked for, but when everything's as irrelevant or loaded as this survey suggests, then surely it means that the FIA take an equally dim view of us.
One exception though, would have to be a survey about your life's passion, which purports to be useful and interested in your opinion but is nothing of the sort. Say hello to the FIA/AMD 2006 Survey of F1 fans.
At such a crucial and pivotal time in the sport's history you'd have thought a definitive and official survey of fans might weigh heavily on matters of purpose and principle; on the sport itself. But no. What we got was a succession of questions about podcasts and mobile phones.
Whether we download boredomcasts of the latest joyless, life-sapping F1 processions onto our watches or whatever is frankly irrelevant compared to whether we want overtaking and thrills and racecraft, or whether we should be allowed to remove Max Mosley by popular vote.
Given that last year's survey unsurprisingly identified the Spa circuit as a massive favourite amongst F1 fans, you'd have thought any responsible and responsive sporting body would not then allow that circuit to be thrown off the following year's calendar.
But you'd be reckoning without the spectacular ability of F1 to shoot itself in both feet whilst stabbing itself in the back (and probably a few other self-destructive cliches on top of that). So we lost Spa and yet another lesson from the 2005 survey went unlearned.
And what's this fixation with mobile phones? - they're for ringing people (or subjecting them to craptacularly annoying music on public transport if you live where I do, apparently) - not for watching GPs: can you honestly say there's any value in pratting around with mobile when they can't even get TV right?
If I'm going to be asked about how I want to watch F1, I want to be able to give answers like "in full, no adverts", "on a dedicated interactive TV channel", "all race weekend", and "on the edge of my seat, which currently isn't possible thanks to you idiots."
Sadly though, the FIA/AMD survey - as it was last year - appears to be little more than an exercise in getting the likes of you and me to tick boxes once they've already decided what outcome they want.
If you filled in the survey, then what can I say? that's 15 perfectly good minutes of your life you won't ever be getting back. It may seem cynical to take such a dim view when our opinions are being asked for, but when everything's as irrelevant or loaded as this survey suggests, then surely it means that the FIA take an equally dim view of us.
Jul 31, 2006
Is F1 For Real?
If you watch that World Wrestling nonsense, or if you're lucky or old enough to remember the wrestling on World of Sport (where old ladies used to try and knock the villainous Giant Haystacks unconscious by throwing their mules and handbags at him) then you'll see where I'm headed with this...
It's obvious that the WWE wrestling is utterly faked; with its catcalling, squabbles, blatant baddies and underhand fighting (painstakingly scripted and staged to make up for a thuddingly dull sport) - and it's gradually dawning on me that F1 must surely be faked too.
When I say F1 is faked, I don't mean in the sense that the moon landings were faked - as if it's some huge deception. No, I simply mean it's all staged and made up for our entertainment like wrestling. Perhaps it was starting to really go off in the mid nineties, and Bernie decided that something had to be done.
And so, after decades of top notch sport and sportsmanship, it was transformed into the most widely broadcast comedy farce in the world. Still convincing enough to hoodwink the casual observer, but for those who dig any deeper, clearly contrived and unreal.
Consider the evidence: for a start would a real sport shoot itself in the mouth with both barrels like F1 did at Indy 2005? Of course not: that would be even dumber than a Vin Diesel movie. It's just not possible - it's only explicable as a huge plot twist.
Likewise when Ferrari threw a wobbly about tyre regulations in 2003, causing the FIA to change the rules and the press to laugh openly at Ross Brawn in a press conference... Again, clearly impossible. Just another set-piece drama to reverse flagging ratings.
As was Schumi's Monaco parking incident this year. Obviously. Nobody is that poorly skilled. My cats can drive better than that, and they don't even have opposable thumbs or a super-license. No F1 driver - or World Champion - could possibly do that by accident; and doing it deliberately could only be a spectacularly inept attempt at cheating, or to do the bidding of F1's puppetmasters and grab worldwide attention just as the season was getting really boring.
Another giveaway is when you notice actors on the grid. Not Sly Stallone, Michael Douglas & Co freeloading at GP weekends, but when they're actually driving the cars... Anybody who's been paying attention knows that Scott Speed isn't real. The plainly fake name aside, he's obviously actor Sean William Scott playing an angry airhead. Who can't drive.
And Rubens Barrichello: clearly the bloke who plays Frasier. Who unsurprisingly spent the first half of the season driving like a middle-aged talk-show host. Ever wondered why you never see Nick Heidfeld and Hayley Joel Osment in the same room? Exactly.
So where next for F1 - The Movie? Well in a very dull, accountancy-based heist plot, Bernie seems to be making off with all the money. And in general, Max Mosley continues to play Doctor Evil and threaten the sport with all kinds of ludicrous deaths. The rest is just processions and politics.
The best outcome has to be that it's not like WWE, but more like Dallas: we wake up and find it's all been a dream, Ayrton Senna's still about and they didn't ban turbos.
However if, god forbid, I'm wrong and this IS all real, then what kind of a sport are we all watching?
It's obvious that the WWE wrestling is utterly faked; with its catcalling, squabbles, blatant baddies and underhand fighting (painstakingly scripted and staged to make up for a thuddingly dull sport) - and it's gradually dawning on me that F1 must surely be faked too.
When I say F1 is faked, I don't mean in the sense that the moon landings were faked - as if it's some huge deception. No, I simply mean it's all staged and made up for our entertainment like wrestling. Perhaps it was starting to really go off in the mid nineties, and Bernie decided that something had to be done.
And so, after decades of top notch sport and sportsmanship, it was transformed into the most widely broadcast comedy farce in the world. Still convincing enough to hoodwink the casual observer, but for those who dig any deeper, clearly contrived and unreal.
Consider the evidence: for a start would a real sport shoot itself in the mouth with both barrels like F1 did at Indy 2005? Of course not: that would be even dumber than a Vin Diesel movie. It's just not possible - it's only explicable as a huge plot twist.
Likewise when Ferrari threw a wobbly about tyre regulations in 2003, causing the FIA to change the rules and the press to laugh openly at Ross Brawn in a press conference... Again, clearly impossible. Just another set-piece drama to reverse flagging ratings.
As was Schumi's Monaco parking incident this year. Obviously. Nobody is that poorly skilled. My cats can drive better than that, and they don't even have opposable thumbs or a super-license. No F1 driver - or World Champion - could possibly do that by accident; and doing it deliberately could only be a spectacularly inept attempt at cheating, or to do the bidding of F1's puppetmasters and grab worldwide attention just as the season was getting really boring.
Another giveaway is when you notice actors on the grid. Not Sly Stallone, Michael Douglas & Co freeloading at GP weekends, but when they're actually driving the cars... Anybody who's been paying attention knows that Scott Speed isn't real. The plainly fake name aside, he's obviously actor Sean William Scott playing an angry airhead. Who can't drive.
And Rubens Barrichello: clearly the bloke who plays Frasier. Who unsurprisingly spent the first half of the season driving like a middle-aged talk-show host. Ever wondered why you never see Nick Heidfeld and Hayley Joel Osment in the same room? Exactly.
So where next for F1 - The Movie? Well in a very dull, accountancy-based heist plot, Bernie seems to be making off with all the money. And in general, Max Mosley continues to play Doctor Evil and threaten the sport with all kinds of ludicrous deaths. The rest is just processions and politics.
The best outcome has to be that it's not like WWE, but more like Dallas: we wake up and find it's all been a dream, Ayrton Senna's still about and they didn't ban turbos.
However if, god forbid, I'm wrong and this IS all real, then what kind of a sport are we all watching?
Jul 25, 2006
Exclusive Johnny Herbert Interview
EXCLUSIVE: Motormouth caught up with Johnny Herbert; one of Britain's F1 greats and now Midland F1's Sporting Director for a wide-ranging chat about Midland, 2008, driver moves, regulations, technology and much, much more. This article appeared in many different shorter TV versions on Teletext.
Some Communications Centres in the blazing hot Magny Cours paddock are always busy, like Renault and Ferrari; buzzing with the constant churn of the media, the wealthy and the usual fair-weather friends that such vast success inspires.
Others, like McLaren with its hastily posted "Invited Guests Only" signs - clearly caught a bit on the back foot by the departure of Juan Pablo Montoya a day or two earlier, would wish to be less busy than usual.
But it's perhaps unsurprisingly in the Midland F1 Communications Centre, the least pretentious and willy-waving of all in the paddock, that communications are most friendly, helpful and effective.
Ron Fine, the team's affable Communications Director, pulls Johnny Herbert, Midland F1's Sporting Relations Manager, from the vast, deep grey trucks that back onto the garages at a moment's notice, and we wander down to their hospitality suite to settle down in the shade with some cool drinks for a chat.
Herbert turns out to be possibly the nicest man you might ever meet; immediately friendly and frank - and he's also someone whose previous life as a driver gives him a great perspective on the sport's intrigues, cycles, politics and relentless technological march.
I ask how the Sporting Relations Manager role suits him - looking after a whole team, when previously as a driver it was all just about himself: "Oh, it's still all about me..." he laughs, "No, when you're this side of it you want the best for the whole team, to get the best from both cars. I'm enjoying it - I'm still learning it and learning how the whole thing evolves and the way the whole thing works around the way the team puts things into practice."
"Originally it was more to do with the media side of things, because of how the rumour mill was churning (surrounding Jordan in 2005), so I was brought in to be the friendly face for people to talk to, but it did get quieter and much more together."
The media role persists, with ongoing stories about the future ownership of the team he admits: "Even now, there are rumours about where this place ends up, but it's really a much calmer atmosphere within to be honest. The original idea was to do very much the press side of stuff, dealing with the drivers and the sponsors; the easy stuff... but now there's a bit more the engineers, the ongoing stuff and what's going on with the FIA towards 2008 and so-on."
I ask if that fuller role is more interesting than just the media side of things for an ex-driver: "Oh yes, but I wouldn't have wanted to just dive straight in, because I hadn't got any experience in that area. Hopefully it'll get more in-depth and there'll be more of the running of everything the way it needs to be."
Herbert originally joined the team last year, and a lot has happened since then... "From the Jordan era to this year it has changed very quickly - I thought it might take longer to shake that off, but it hasn't - and everybody's very dedicated to it, and of course there's all the rule changes which everybody's talking about at the same time. You'd think (the rule changes) would benefit the smaller teams such as ourselves, but of course they're not actually settled yet, so we don't know quite what they're going to be - we've got a good idea but we don't know exactly so we'll have to wait and see."
I ask where he hopes Midland will be by the end of this year, and where they hope to be next year? "We've come from a position where we had no chance of getting through to the second round of qualifying to now hopefully getting that consistency there that we do qualify both cars in that second round."
Which gives some room tactically as you look to the race itself...
"Oh yeah - exactly. We still need to improve our race pace... we've seen it sporadically but we need to see it more consistently. To compete against the others that's what you need: that's probably the biggest thing we need to work on for the moment."
So, for 2007? "Once we can get that race pace side of things going, and we know what is happening with F1 in 2008 basically then we can structure ourselves in a way that aim towards 2008 really..." So that ideally puts you in a position to then develop for both 2007 and 2008 simultaneously?
"Yeah, exactly - sure. I think 2008 will be the main one because of the amount of change."
One area where Johnny Herbert has a naturally deeper awareness of sensitivities and dynamics is in the nurturing of the two Midland drivers; Monteiro and Albers. What's it like to look after and push two competing talents working for the same team as well as for themselves? "The competitiveness between the drivers is always, I think, a positive thing because I think it just lifts the drivers, which lifts the team, and which helps everything work much, much more efficiently. But we're not looking at winning or podiums of course; we're looking more at the latter part of the points."
Whilst his approach to inter-driver competition seems healthy, does he find the Red Bull approach of threatening drivers a bit destructive by comparison? "It's destructive, but I suppose there are certain points that you have to get to if things aren't going your way - Red Bull for example, they expected a lot more, but they haven't got it. The Toro Rosso has probably effectively started to out-drive the Red Bull cars, and then the pressure's on Red Bull, the drivers, the engineers and everybody else to get it together to be able to keep them behind, so then the pressure does up itself. But then that's Formula One."
The Midland F1 drivers, the odd tangle aside, seem to have been quietly doing okay so far... "Yeah, they're doing okay really. They have helped development, and the car has gone forward. So the guys back at the factory have all done the aero work and put it on the cars, the drivers have given their input, and it has been really positive - and it has got better. It's not easy to close the gap on the big guys, but we've been able to do that - we're not up their exhaust pipes of course, but we have got closer."
Herbert's main concern for his drivers is not losing the pace from qualifying to the race itself: "As I said the only thing we need to do is to get the race pace better; and that's down to the drivers being able to get the best from the car - if they can get the best from the car in qualifying and get it into the second phase of qualifying then I don't see any reason why they can't have a better race pace."
If they can sort that, then it looks to build a virtuous circle: "It's good for their careers, it's good for the team, it's good for all of us."
Knowing what a great F1 driver Johnny Herbert was, you can't help wondering if he misses it a bit... I ask if he's driven the Midland M16: "No... though actually I almost did the other week!" he says, referring to almost sitting in on a recent test session. "Tiago had a problem with his neck, and Christijan had a problem with his back. He eventually did do the day, but they did phone me up to see if I was sitting around throughout the day, which would have been quite an interesting one, It was close. My comeback was close!" he laughs.
It's inevitable that I'd also want to ask Johnny about his own time as a driver. I ask what his favourite cars were, not necessarily because of having taken wins in them, but more because of character and driveability... "Well, I was very lucky and fortunate in that I got the end of the turbo era: I drove the Benetton Ford and the Lotus Honda - and they were good. They were very 'brute force' power, they had about 950 to 1000 horsepower when I drove them, but then of course you had the big tall wings, the big front wings, the big fat tyres - they were really awesome to drive."
Were they really very different to drive, as they always look like they got thrown around a lot more? "Yeah; a different style completely because it was all more or less 'brake very very late, get round the corner, get the turbo spinning again, short-shift through the gears and get going again - they were pretty awesome things: I would say that was the best thing ever. But the early nineties were good as well, because we still had the big tyres and wings and everything else and they were really good too."
Johnny Herbert's F1 driving career lasted several years, during which - as ever - the sport was in huge transition. And although he cites cars like the old Lotus as a favourite, he was still competing in cars such as Saubers and Stewarts, which have a lot more in common with today's cars.
By the time Johnny retired from driving, the cars were designed and built to parameters and regulations which, at a basic level, have changed far less than during the years that he drove.
I wonder if any of that kind of power or brute force or 'oomph' he used to enjoy is missing from the contemporary F1 car? "It's one of those things. It's typical with the designers - the way they've tried to reduce everything, they've still been able to achieve, this year probably for the first time, the same G-forces that we had in the early nineties. They're up around 4G again which probably we haven't seen since those days when we had slicks and big wings. So the G-forces are still there."
Nonetheless, in recent years, driving styles have been less riveting, more conservative? "You have to be very careful - a bit like a ballerina on her toes, it's all very delicate the way you have to drive; whereas again, now you have people like Kimi and Fernando, maybe those two, who are very aggressive with their cars. I think we lost a bit in the early 2000s, but it has slowly crept back, which I think is good because as a driver I always think the ultimate was being able to grab it by the scruff of the neck and basically drive the pants off it."
I ask his opinions on today's crop of British drivers; the up and coming, and the already established. I suggest that you've got to feel pretty sorry for Jenson so far this season. He agrees: "Yeah - Well, he's been under a bit more pressure because Rubens has come through after a bit of a slow start to the season."
But then Rubens has upped his game, hasn't he... "Yeah, well, he's had to. He's under pressure too for the first time in quite a long while. Rubens is no slouch - he's a good qualifier and he's a very consistent racer too."
"For Jenson it's a shame, as the Honda hasn't come to fruition - it looked good at the beginning of the year; and then it was back to that position of qualifying well but racing badly, and now it's sort of - well, the qualifying isn't that good and the racing's about as same as the qualifying. So it's not too good at the moment. But you've got to see how that pans out. He's just got to stick at it. It might change next year, and he might be absolutely brilliant."
DC seems a lot happier, I suggest. Even though Red Bull may be lacking a bit right now, it seems the right kind of place for him...? "Yeah, he seems to have had a new lease of life at the end of his career really. Recently probably hasn't quite gone quite so well - it's been a bit mixed. As you said, there's a been a little bit of a depression because obviously the Toro Rosso's been pushing right up their backside... But, yeah, he's enjoying it. The car hasn't been as good as they expected - and it's probably been 50-50 between him and Klien at the end of the day."
I suggest that it's a bit of a shame that in fact Christian Klien has sometimes been doing a good bit better than DC and losing out to mechanical failures or whatever, and the Red Bull policy of choosing / sacking drivers on points doesn't necessarily reflect their true performance...
Johnny, whilst accepting that, still understands the harsh but clear team perspective on it: "No, but it's always black and white unfortunately. People always look at black and white, they very rarely look at the reasons why... and that's always a problem."
How about Anthony Davidson? "Anthony? Well... it's one of those unfortunate things. I always feel he should have a chance because I think that he's a not half decent driver. Of late he's come back because of the Friday practice sessions again this year, though perhaps the car isn't as competitive as it was. Sadly though the chances for him are going to be very limited as there aren't many seats left. I think he's done a good job but never really had a proper opportunity to show that."
With Montoya having so recently and abruptly left McLaren, I wonder what his thoughts are on the much-talked about Lewis Hamilton with regard to Ron Dennis' team... "Well you'd think they'd test him and see how he is - and if he's not ready, then maybe farm him out for a couple of years and then bring him back."
"You know, Alonso did fine by doing his Minardi bit and then getting his Renault chance, so from that point of view I don't think that's a problem for him, but then of course McLaren don't want to lose him."
What were his thoughts on Montoya walking away from the sport? "Well, to be honest, I think for him, it was probably the best thing for him... He obviously can't have been enjoying it or having fun with it, and was very disillusioned with it..."
I think many of us wouldn't have been surprised to not see him on the grid next year - but disappearing right in the middle of the season? "No, I've not really heard any negatives about it really, I think it was probably the right thing to do from his point of view - It wasn't going to happen, he didn't want to stay, so why not go now."
Possibly the only other 'rising' Brit might be Gary Paffett; though his chances of a seat next year are surely fairly slim? "Paffett... I must say, I don't know how much testing he's actually done... there's too many hanging around for a very limited amount of slots. Out of the two, you'd think it would be Hamilton, yes... because of what he's done, he's been with McLaren a long time, he's doing well in GP2..."
"Why would you put Gary ahead of him? So you would think it would be Hamilton. Then of course there's Kovalainen - now you would think that Flavio would put him somewhere. So then that's limited the seats."
While we're on the subject of the limited likely slots in 2007's line-up, I ask about the possible Midland seats. "I have no idea what we're doing next year yet..." he replies. Not in any kind of cagey or defensive sense though.
He just sounds as if it genuinely isn't an issue to get in the way at this point of the season; his drivers have their work to do with continuing to up the team's performance, so why cloud things with distracting talk of seats and line-ups.
The 2007 grid is, of course, fascinating to speculate on though, so we chat a bit further about other teams' options. With regard to BMW he says, "Heidfeld I'm sure will stay. But Jacques's been doing better so he might well end up staying. He's had a good year to be honest..."
And what about Kimi? "Well if he's off to Ferrari or has done his deal with Ferrari I would have thought Michael will always have that "I'm number one"... and how does that work, because Kimi's not going to go there as a number two..."
I ask him where he'd put his money right now as far as Raikkonen is concerned: Ferrari or Renault? "Er... well, actually - I suppose, knowing Flavio, I guess I wouldn't be surprised..."
He too finds the general lack of confirmations to any team, or of definitely parting with McLaren, quite noticeable: "It's very quiet though isn't it? It's amazing how quiet it is. And there's the assumption that he has gone - that's the big thing. It's very strange. It'll be interesting." It certainly will...
As we've been discussing the regulation changes for 2008 and how they may impact his, and other teams, it seems natural to bring up the other major 2008 talking point; the arrival of Prodrive. Will it be good to see David Richards back? "Yeah - it'll be interesting to see him running his own outfit, as we've obviously seen him before running the Honda team as BAR, he's had his rally experience and his sportscar experience and they've always done very, very well. Formula One is a different thing though, especially when you're doing it yourself. There's a lot of pressure on you to get everything together to make it work out."
Time has flown, and I've filled up loads of tape with questions I hadn't even planned on asking. What started as an interview has just played out into a long, diverting and hugely enjoyable F1 chat.
It's fascinating to hear someone with so much experience from all angles of the sport giving you the benefit of his thoughts. After saying thanks, I walk away through the baking heat, strangely noticing how it's not felt the tiniest bit like work.
You leave the Communications Centre feeling almost obliged to support Midland from here on, simply for being so accommodating and helpful. Or maybe it's one of those underdog things; like the reason so many people loved Minardi, or indeed Jordan.
They're a bunch of phenomenally talented guys working at the highest levels of sport - and to not be on top in a sport so fiercely competitive and where 'on top' is about the only thing that gets noticed, probably hurts a great deal more than it deserves to.
Nonetheless, seeing ways forward, ways up to that rarified top level, is exactly why they're there. And you only want to wish them well with it. This year, next - and of course in 2008.
Given the somewhat limited options for excitement elsewhere for the rest of this season, I've certainly promised myself to go whooping at every success that comes Midland's way.
And I hope they'll be giving me plenty to cheer about.
Some Communications Centres in the blazing hot Magny Cours paddock are always busy, like Renault and Ferrari; buzzing with the constant churn of the media, the wealthy and the usual fair-weather friends that such vast success inspires.
Others, like McLaren with its hastily posted "Invited Guests Only" signs - clearly caught a bit on the back foot by the departure of Juan Pablo Montoya a day or two earlier, would wish to be less busy than usual.
But it's perhaps unsurprisingly in the Midland F1 Communications Centre, the least pretentious and willy-waving of all in the paddock, that communications are most friendly, helpful and effective.
Ron Fine, the team's affable Communications Director, pulls Johnny Herbert, Midland F1's Sporting Relations Manager, from the vast, deep grey trucks that back onto the garages at a moment's notice, and we wander down to their hospitality suite to settle down in the shade with some cool drinks for a chat.
Herbert turns out to be possibly the nicest man you might ever meet; immediately friendly and frank - and he's also someone whose previous life as a driver gives him a great perspective on the sport's intrigues, cycles, politics and relentless technological march.
I ask how the Sporting Relations Manager role suits him - looking after a whole team, when previously as a driver it was all just about himself: "Oh, it's still all about me..." he laughs, "No, when you're this side of it you want the best for the whole team, to get the best from both cars. I'm enjoying it - I'm still learning it and learning how the whole thing evolves and the way the whole thing works around the way the team puts things into practice."
"Originally it was more to do with the media side of things, because of how the rumour mill was churning (surrounding Jordan in 2005), so I was brought in to be the friendly face for people to talk to, but it did get quieter and much more together."
The media role persists, with ongoing stories about the future ownership of the team he admits: "Even now, there are rumours about where this place ends up, but it's really a much calmer atmosphere within to be honest. The original idea was to do very much the press side of stuff, dealing with the drivers and the sponsors; the easy stuff... but now there's a bit more the engineers, the ongoing stuff and what's going on with the FIA towards 2008 and so-on."
I ask if that fuller role is more interesting than just the media side of things for an ex-driver: "Oh yes, but I wouldn't have wanted to just dive straight in, because I hadn't got any experience in that area. Hopefully it'll get more in-depth and there'll be more of the running of everything the way it needs to be."
Herbert originally joined the team last year, and a lot has happened since then... "From the Jordan era to this year it has changed very quickly - I thought it might take longer to shake that off, but it hasn't - and everybody's very dedicated to it, and of course there's all the rule changes which everybody's talking about at the same time. You'd think (the rule changes) would benefit the smaller teams such as ourselves, but of course they're not actually settled yet, so we don't know quite what they're going to be - we've got a good idea but we don't know exactly so we'll have to wait and see."
I ask where he hopes Midland will be by the end of this year, and where they hope to be next year? "We've come from a position where we had no chance of getting through to the second round of qualifying to now hopefully getting that consistency there that we do qualify both cars in that second round."
Which gives some room tactically as you look to the race itself...
"Oh yeah - exactly. We still need to improve our race pace... we've seen it sporadically but we need to see it more consistently. To compete against the others that's what you need: that's probably the biggest thing we need to work on for the moment."
So, for 2007? "Once we can get that race pace side of things going, and we know what is happening with F1 in 2008 basically then we can structure ourselves in a way that aim towards 2008 really..." So that ideally puts you in a position to then develop for both 2007 and 2008 simultaneously?
"Yeah, exactly - sure. I think 2008 will be the main one because of the amount of change."
One area where Johnny Herbert has a naturally deeper awareness of sensitivities and dynamics is in the nurturing of the two Midland drivers; Monteiro and Albers. What's it like to look after and push two competing talents working for the same team as well as for themselves? "The competitiveness between the drivers is always, I think, a positive thing because I think it just lifts the drivers, which lifts the team, and which helps everything work much, much more efficiently. But we're not looking at winning or podiums of course; we're looking more at the latter part of the points."
Whilst his approach to inter-driver competition seems healthy, does he find the Red Bull approach of threatening drivers a bit destructive by comparison? "It's destructive, but I suppose there are certain points that you have to get to if things aren't going your way - Red Bull for example, they expected a lot more, but they haven't got it. The Toro Rosso has probably effectively started to out-drive the Red Bull cars, and then the pressure's on Red Bull, the drivers, the engineers and everybody else to get it together to be able to keep them behind, so then the pressure does up itself. But then that's Formula One."
The Midland F1 drivers, the odd tangle aside, seem to have been quietly doing okay so far... "Yeah, they're doing okay really. They have helped development, and the car has gone forward. So the guys back at the factory have all done the aero work and put it on the cars, the drivers have given their input, and it has been really positive - and it has got better. It's not easy to close the gap on the big guys, but we've been able to do that - we're not up their exhaust pipes of course, but we have got closer."
Herbert's main concern for his drivers is not losing the pace from qualifying to the race itself: "As I said the only thing we need to do is to get the race pace better; and that's down to the drivers being able to get the best from the car - if they can get the best from the car in qualifying and get it into the second phase of qualifying then I don't see any reason why they can't have a better race pace."
If they can sort that, then it looks to build a virtuous circle: "It's good for their careers, it's good for the team, it's good for all of us."
Knowing what a great F1 driver Johnny Herbert was, you can't help wondering if he misses it a bit... I ask if he's driven the Midland M16: "No... though actually I almost did the other week!" he says, referring to almost sitting in on a recent test session. "Tiago had a problem with his neck, and Christijan had a problem with his back. He eventually did do the day, but they did phone me up to see if I was sitting around throughout the day, which would have been quite an interesting one, It was close. My comeback was close!" he laughs.
It's inevitable that I'd also want to ask Johnny about his own time as a driver. I ask what his favourite cars were, not necessarily because of having taken wins in them, but more because of character and driveability... "Well, I was very lucky and fortunate in that I got the end of the turbo era: I drove the Benetton Ford and the Lotus Honda - and they were good. They were very 'brute force' power, they had about 950 to 1000 horsepower when I drove them, but then of course you had the big tall wings, the big front wings, the big fat tyres - they were really awesome to drive."
Were they really very different to drive, as they always look like they got thrown around a lot more? "Yeah; a different style completely because it was all more or less 'brake very very late, get round the corner, get the turbo spinning again, short-shift through the gears and get going again - they were pretty awesome things: I would say that was the best thing ever. But the early nineties were good as well, because we still had the big tyres and wings and everything else and they were really good too."
Johnny Herbert's F1 driving career lasted several years, during which - as ever - the sport was in huge transition. And although he cites cars like the old Lotus as a favourite, he was still competing in cars such as Saubers and Stewarts, which have a lot more in common with today's cars.
By the time Johnny retired from driving, the cars were designed and built to parameters and regulations which, at a basic level, have changed far less than during the years that he drove.
I wonder if any of that kind of power or brute force or 'oomph' he used to enjoy is missing from the contemporary F1 car? "It's one of those things. It's typical with the designers - the way they've tried to reduce everything, they've still been able to achieve, this year probably for the first time, the same G-forces that we had in the early nineties. They're up around 4G again which probably we haven't seen since those days when we had slicks and big wings. So the G-forces are still there."
Nonetheless, in recent years, driving styles have been less riveting, more conservative? "You have to be very careful - a bit like a ballerina on her toes, it's all very delicate the way you have to drive; whereas again, now you have people like Kimi and Fernando, maybe those two, who are very aggressive with their cars. I think we lost a bit in the early 2000s, but it has slowly crept back, which I think is good because as a driver I always think the ultimate was being able to grab it by the scruff of the neck and basically drive the pants off it."
I ask his opinions on today's crop of British drivers; the up and coming, and the already established. I suggest that you've got to feel pretty sorry for Jenson so far this season. He agrees: "Yeah - Well, he's been under a bit more pressure because Rubens has come through after a bit of a slow start to the season."
But then Rubens has upped his game, hasn't he... "Yeah, well, he's had to. He's under pressure too for the first time in quite a long while. Rubens is no slouch - he's a good qualifier and he's a very consistent racer too."
"For Jenson it's a shame, as the Honda hasn't come to fruition - it looked good at the beginning of the year; and then it was back to that position of qualifying well but racing badly, and now it's sort of - well, the qualifying isn't that good and the racing's about as same as the qualifying. So it's not too good at the moment. But you've got to see how that pans out. He's just got to stick at it. It might change next year, and he might be absolutely brilliant."
DC seems a lot happier, I suggest. Even though Red Bull may be lacking a bit right now, it seems the right kind of place for him...? "Yeah, he seems to have had a new lease of life at the end of his career really. Recently probably hasn't quite gone quite so well - it's been a bit mixed. As you said, there's a been a little bit of a depression because obviously the Toro Rosso's been pushing right up their backside... But, yeah, he's enjoying it. The car hasn't been as good as they expected - and it's probably been 50-50 between him and Klien at the end of the day."
I suggest that it's a bit of a shame that in fact Christian Klien has sometimes been doing a good bit better than DC and losing out to mechanical failures or whatever, and the Red Bull policy of choosing / sacking drivers on points doesn't necessarily reflect their true performance...
Johnny, whilst accepting that, still understands the harsh but clear team perspective on it: "No, but it's always black and white unfortunately. People always look at black and white, they very rarely look at the reasons why... and that's always a problem."
How about Anthony Davidson? "Anthony? Well... it's one of those unfortunate things. I always feel he should have a chance because I think that he's a not half decent driver. Of late he's come back because of the Friday practice sessions again this year, though perhaps the car isn't as competitive as it was. Sadly though the chances for him are going to be very limited as there aren't many seats left. I think he's done a good job but never really had a proper opportunity to show that."
With Montoya having so recently and abruptly left McLaren, I wonder what his thoughts are on the much-talked about Lewis Hamilton with regard to Ron Dennis' team... "Well you'd think they'd test him and see how he is - and if he's not ready, then maybe farm him out for a couple of years and then bring him back."
"You know, Alonso did fine by doing his Minardi bit and then getting his Renault chance, so from that point of view I don't think that's a problem for him, but then of course McLaren don't want to lose him."
What were his thoughts on Montoya walking away from the sport? "Well, to be honest, I think for him, it was probably the best thing for him... He obviously can't have been enjoying it or having fun with it, and was very disillusioned with it..."
I think many of us wouldn't have been surprised to not see him on the grid next year - but disappearing right in the middle of the season? "No, I've not really heard any negatives about it really, I think it was probably the right thing to do from his point of view - It wasn't going to happen, he didn't want to stay, so why not go now."
Possibly the only other 'rising' Brit might be Gary Paffett; though his chances of a seat next year are surely fairly slim? "Paffett... I must say, I don't know how much testing he's actually done... there's too many hanging around for a very limited amount of slots. Out of the two, you'd think it would be Hamilton, yes... because of what he's done, he's been with McLaren a long time, he's doing well in GP2..."
"Why would you put Gary ahead of him? So you would think it would be Hamilton. Then of course there's Kovalainen - now you would think that Flavio would put him somewhere. So then that's limited the seats."
While we're on the subject of the limited likely slots in 2007's line-up, I ask about the possible Midland seats. "I have no idea what we're doing next year yet..." he replies. Not in any kind of cagey or defensive sense though.
He just sounds as if it genuinely isn't an issue to get in the way at this point of the season; his drivers have their work to do with continuing to up the team's performance, so why cloud things with distracting talk of seats and line-ups.
The 2007 grid is, of course, fascinating to speculate on though, so we chat a bit further about other teams' options. With regard to BMW he says, "Heidfeld I'm sure will stay. But Jacques's been doing better so he might well end up staying. He's had a good year to be honest..."
And what about Kimi? "Well if he's off to Ferrari or has done his deal with Ferrari I would have thought Michael will always have that "I'm number one"... and how does that work, because Kimi's not going to go there as a number two..."
I ask him where he'd put his money right now as far as Raikkonen is concerned: Ferrari or Renault? "Er... well, actually - I suppose, knowing Flavio, I guess I wouldn't be surprised..."
He too finds the general lack of confirmations to any team, or of definitely parting with McLaren, quite noticeable: "It's very quiet though isn't it? It's amazing how quiet it is. And there's the assumption that he has gone - that's the big thing. It's very strange. It'll be interesting." It certainly will...
As we've been discussing the regulation changes for 2008 and how they may impact his, and other teams, it seems natural to bring up the other major 2008 talking point; the arrival of Prodrive. Will it be good to see David Richards back? "Yeah - it'll be interesting to see him running his own outfit, as we've obviously seen him before running the Honda team as BAR, he's had his rally experience and his sportscar experience and they've always done very, very well. Formula One is a different thing though, especially when you're doing it yourself. There's a lot of pressure on you to get everything together to make it work out."
Time has flown, and I've filled up loads of tape with questions I hadn't even planned on asking. What started as an interview has just played out into a long, diverting and hugely enjoyable F1 chat.
It's fascinating to hear someone with so much experience from all angles of the sport giving you the benefit of his thoughts. After saying thanks, I walk away through the baking heat, strangely noticing how it's not felt the tiniest bit like work.
You leave the Communications Centre feeling almost obliged to support Midland from here on, simply for being so accommodating and helpful. Or maybe it's one of those underdog things; like the reason so many people loved Minardi, or indeed Jordan.
They're a bunch of phenomenally talented guys working at the highest levels of sport - and to not be on top in a sport so fiercely competitive and where 'on top' is about the only thing that gets noticed, probably hurts a great deal more than it deserves to.
Nonetheless, seeing ways forward, ways up to that rarified top level, is exactly why they're there. And you only want to wish them well with it. This year, next - and of course in 2008.
Given the somewhat limited options for excitement elsewhere for the rest of this season, I've certainly promised myself to go whooping at every success that comes Midland's way.
And I hope they'll be giving me plenty to cheer about.
Jul 24, 2006
Bring Back Bernievision
Bernie Ecclestone - you either love him or loathe him. Or, like me, you find time to do both...
He's a polarising figure who's come to amass around £2.2bn in wealth from F1 through very astute business and very smart politics.
As someone who basically started by running Brabham in the seventies, he's come a very long way indeed, seeming to absorb each important and money-making facet of the sport over the successive decades until he pretty much owns it all.
As F1 "supremo" (wouldn't that be a fantastic word to have on your business card) he tends to be on the side of the fans and the sport, (as opposed to Max Mosley, who clearly models himself on Alan Rickman's classic pantomime Sheriff of Nottingham from 'Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves'); although he does still have lapses...
Bernie didn't manage to prevent a completely preventable and unmitigated disaster at Indy last year, even tossing back smarmy answers at Martin Brundle (in his finest hour) on live TV, and looking like a pratt fiddling while something big and important burned.
Still, he has had some great ideas - like the outrageous 1978 Brabham BT46 'Fan Car'. And perhaps, most importantly, "Bernievision" - the name people gave to his phenomenal digital F1 channel you could get on Sky a few years ago.
It was a perfect match of sport and technology: I tend to take most things in my stride, but as an F1 fan and a telly addict I was blown way by its amazing capacity to deliver something approaching the ultimate at-home GP experience.
Bernievision gave you a multi-screen setup where you could pick main feed, onboard shots, pit lane coverage, leaders, midfield, looped repeated highlights, timing data, driver profiles, and all kinds of other geeky goodness.
Not only that but it was on for every single part of the event: Friday practice sessions, full Saturdays - practice and quali, even the Sunday warm-up and full race build-up. It was able to make everything so exciting (even when in reality it perhaps wasn't) and allowed you phenomenal levels of scrutiny - I spent most of 2002 watching Kimi Raikkonen's engines grenade themselves from millions of fascinating angles...
Once an idea ahead of its time (reflected in the original lack of take-up) it's now in danger of being lost, when it could be a crucial tool in distributing F1 to all the "markets" Bernie wants to get onboard.
F1 needs a dedicated media division focused on bringing back that service and getting it on every digital network on earth. Never has the sport needed more people to get excited about it, and what a great legacy it would be for Bernie to do just that...
He's a polarising figure who's come to amass around £2.2bn in wealth from F1 through very astute business and very smart politics.
As someone who basically started by running Brabham in the seventies, he's come a very long way indeed, seeming to absorb each important and money-making facet of the sport over the successive decades until he pretty much owns it all.
As F1 "supremo" (wouldn't that be a fantastic word to have on your business card) he tends to be on the side of the fans and the sport, (as opposed to Max Mosley, who clearly models himself on Alan Rickman's classic pantomime Sheriff of Nottingham from 'Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves'); although he does still have lapses...
Bernie didn't manage to prevent a completely preventable and unmitigated disaster at Indy last year, even tossing back smarmy answers at Martin Brundle (in his finest hour) on live TV, and looking like a pratt fiddling while something big and important burned.
Still, he has had some great ideas - like the outrageous 1978 Brabham BT46 'Fan Car'. And perhaps, most importantly, "Bernievision" - the name people gave to his phenomenal digital F1 channel you could get on Sky a few years ago.
It was a perfect match of sport and technology: I tend to take most things in my stride, but as an F1 fan and a telly addict I was blown way by its amazing capacity to deliver something approaching the ultimate at-home GP experience.
Bernievision gave you a multi-screen setup where you could pick main feed, onboard shots, pit lane coverage, leaders, midfield, looped repeated highlights, timing data, driver profiles, and all kinds of other geeky goodness.
Not only that but it was on for every single part of the event: Friday practice sessions, full Saturdays - practice and quali, even the Sunday warm-up and full race build-up. It was able to make everything so exciting (even when in reality it perhaps wasn't) and allowed you phenomenal levels of scrutiny - I spent most of 2002 watching Kimi Raikkonen's engines grenade themselves from millions of fascinating angles...
Once an idea ahead of its time (reflected in the original lack of take-up) it's now in danger of being lost, when it could be a crucial tool in distributing F1 to all the "markets" Bernie wants to get onboard.
F1 needs a dedicated media division focused on bringing back that service and getting it on every digital network on earth. Never has the sport needed more people to get excited about it, and what a great legacy it would be for Bernie to do just that...
Jul 17, 2006
Friday Bloody Friday
If you've been to a grand prix this year, and paid to attend on the Friday you'll probably have noticed something... the feeling of being ripped off. More than in previous years, Fridays seem to be giving far less to fans as their heroes sit out the sessions in the garages.
There are currently ideas being aired among the bosses to change Fridays so they give more for fans, but in the meantime they could at least consider supplementing the Free Practice sessions with some kind of paint-drying event to really liven things up.
Thanks to Max's 'cost cutting, improving the sport' engine rules - about as predictably disastrous as any scheme that has the word 'improvement' in it - Friday's Free Practice sessions have been pretty poorly used by the top names so far.
If you're keeping up with it via the web, a paper, or Teletext of course, then it's merely one more crushing disappointment and a Mosley monogrammed nail in the coffin of F1. If you've paid good money to go and watch, then it's infuriating beyond belief.
Fans shell out lots of money to attend GP "weekends" - and to have all the stars barely touching the circuit for a third of it because they don't want to turn over their engines or use up any tyres, puts a big dent in your enjoyment, believe me.
Admittedly there are some cracking third drivers who do put some laps in - Davidson, Wurz, Kubica; though Alex has done a fair bit of showboating, throwing in some very cheeky low-fuel flyers for the hell of it despite Sam Michael saying that Williams don't do that kind of thing... (It's probably just fun for them to stick a finger up at BMW.)
The problem is that while third drivers can afford to properly 'drive' their cars on a Friday, anyone on the grid can barely afford to fire them up in case they damage them, lose performance, or wear them out.
The less laps the actual race drivers spend out there on Fridays, the less prepared they'll obviously be (even with third drivers gathering data). And, as good as the third drivers are, fans want to see the stars. Harsh but true.
Often this season, about half the field barely turn a wheel in the 1st session, and don't do much in the 2nd either. That's shoddy - it really is. If the fans can be bothered to turn up, then the F1 circus should have the decency to put on a show.
Otherwise one of the hidden costs in Max's engine cost-cutting may be yet more disgruntled fans walking away from a sport they love but can't bear to see dismembered and destroyed.
Fridays may not be race days Max, but you ignore them at your peril.
There are currently ideas being aired among the bosses to change Fridays so they give more for fans, but in the meantime they could at least consider supplementing the Free Practice sessions with some kind of paint-drying event to really liven things up.
Thanks to Max's 'cost cutting, improving the sport' engine rules - about as predictably disastrous as any scheme that has the word 'improvement' in it - Friday's Free Practice sessions have been pretty poorly used by the top names so far.
If you're keeping up with it via the web, a paper, or Teletext of course, then it's merely one more crushing disappointment and a Mosley monogrammed nail in the coffin of F1. If you've paid good money to go and watch, then it's infuriating beyond belief.
Fans shell out lots of money to attend GP "weekends" - and to have all the stars barely touching the circuit for a third of it because they don't want to turn over their engines or use up any tyres, puts a big dent in your enjoyment, believe me.
Admittedly there are some cracking third drivers who do put some laps in - Davidson, Wurz, Kubica; though Alex has done a fair bit of showboating, throwing in some very cheeky low-fuel flyers for the hell of it despite Sam Michael saying that Williams don't do that kind of thing... (It's probably just fun for them to stick a finger up at BMW.)
The problem is that while third drivers can afford to properly 'drive' their cars on a Friday, anyone on the grid can barely afford to fire them up in case they damage them, lose performance, or wear them out.
The less laps the actual race drivers spend out there on Fridays, the less prepared they'll obviously be (even with third drivers gathering data). And, as good as the third drivers are, fans want to see the stars. Harsh but true.
Often this season, about half the field barely turn a wheel in the 1st session, and don't do much in the 2nd either. That's shoddy - it really is. If the fans can be bothered to turn up, then the F1 circus should have the decency to put on a show.
Otherwise one of the hidden costs in Max's engine cost-cutting may be yet more disgruntled fans walking away from a sport they love but can't bear to see dismembered and destroyed.
Fridays may not be race days Max, but you ignore them at your peril.
Jul 10, 2006
Mad Max
When you heard earlier in the year that Max Mosley was, amongst many other surreal, daft and outright barking things, suggesting age limits on drivers did it suggest any related bright idea to you too?
Yes, absolutely spot on: Age limits on FIA Presidents. It's surely the only way to stop the madness...
The constant battle between the teams and the authorities (it was Jean Marie Ballestre's FISA before the FIA) seems to have gone on forever. It's an epic battle for the soul of the sport: good versus evil, or at the very least basically nice versus profoundly stupid.
And there's still no sign of it stopping, even with the GPMA breakaway series threatened by the manufacturers apparently over and done with; Mad Max always apparently issues edicts at random to open up old wounds or start fresh battles whenever peace looks like breaking out.
It's not random of course: Max isn't thick. Just because pretty much everything he does in rewriting sporting and technical regulations appears to suggest he should get the Queen's medal for contributions to thickness, it's not that simple.
Everything has a purpose and as often as not many pronouncements may have more to do with calling bluffs, shifting the ground on which other battles are being fought, than they do on any superficial level.
And let's not suggest the teams are blameless in all this either - they have their own plans for the future (that now includes Renault, who had originally suggested the baffling idea of trying to run and plan a team on a year-by-year basis) and so does Bernie.
He'll have bags of ideas about where he wants the sport to go - both idealogically and geographically. I would hope in those plans is a section about bringing back his Bernievision multi-screen digital TV channel - an idea once ahead of its time, but now surely an absolute winner.
Still, one of the best bits of F1 news so far this year is Max confirming this is his last mandate as President. It does come tinged with sadness though, as he says he has "a substitute ready..." My guess is that it (sadly) isn't going to be Paul Stoddart.
If I'm correct, there was talk a while back of Jean Todt ending up succeeding Max; a legacy that would confirm to many that the FIA and Ferrari have an unhealthy relationship. But it might be just the kind of deliberately inflammatory (or plain mad) parting gesture one ought to expect...
Yes, absolutely spot on: Age limits on FIA Presidents. It's surely the only way to stop the madness...
The constant battle between the teams and the authorities (it was Jean Marie Ballestre's FISA before the FIA) seems to have gone on forever. It's an epic battle for the soul of the sport: good versus evil, or at the very least basically nice versus profoundly stupid.
And there's still no sign of it stopping, even with the GPMA breakaway series threatened by the manufacturers apparently over and done with; Mad Max always apparently issues edicts at random to open up old wounds or start fresh battles whenever peace looks like breaking out.
It's not random of course: Max isn't thick. Just because pretty much everything he does in rewriting sporting and technical regulations appears to suggest he should get the Queen's medal for contributions to thickness, it's not that simple.
Everything has a purpose and as often as not many pronouncements may have more to do with calling bluffs, shifting the ground on which other battles are being fought, than they do on any superficial level.
And let's not suggest the teams are blameless in all this either - they have their own plans for the future (that now includes Renault, who had originally suggested the baffling idea of trying to run and plan a team on a year-by-year basis) and so does Bernie.
He'll have bags of ideas about where he wants the sport to go - both idealogically and geographically. I would hope in those plans is a section about bringing back his Bernievision multi-screen digital TV channel - an idea once ahead of its time, but now surely an absolute winner.
Still, one of the best bits of F1 news so far this year is Max confirming this is his last mandate as President. It does come tinged with sadness though, as he says he has "a substitute ready..." My guess is that it (sadly) isn't going to be Paul Stoddart.
If I'm correct, there was talk a while back of Jean Todt ending up succeeding Max; a legacy that would confirm to many that the FIA and Ferrari have an unhealthy relationship. But it might be just the kind of deliberately inflammatory (or plain mad) parting gesture one ought to expect...
Jul 3, 2006
Lest We Forget...
It must be difficult not being one of the top four or five drivers. It's the F1 equivalent of being Bill Pullman. Or do I mean Bill Paxton? No. No, I was right first time... Pullman. See, that's exactly what I mean. If you're not A-list material, it's easy to become a bit forgettable - or, worse still, invisible.
If you're anything less than a genius driver in a phenomenal team, then however great your achievements, you can be ignored in the noisier static of the media.
Nick Heidfeld for instance (apparently no taller than an Action Man in real life, and so always subject to visibility problems) is a consistent, clever and reliable driver. And very fast on a good day. His 2006 hasn't exactly been fab, but it's certainly not been a disaster either, and he's still done some great driving. It just happens to have been eclipsed by the front runners.
Felipe Massa too has been nothing less than workmanlike (in that he goes around demolishing things...) and has quietly done a good job helping the Ferrari campaign. You only really tend to notice the errors of course.
Nico Rosberg gets talked up as F1's David Beckham - a vaguely plausible comparison until you realise that he actually looks more like a blonde girl with mumps than an international footballer. And with a couple of great races already this year (Bahrain & Europe), he stands a chance of stepping out of his dad's not inconsiderable shadow.
His dad's big shadow is not merely middle-age spread: he was an awesome racer (note the word 'racer', not simply 'driver') during the eighties - fast, fearless, fair and supremely gifted. If Nico has some of that in his genes, then it's his duty to all of us to bring it back into the sport.
Takuma Sato has actually been doing a great job, given the tools he has to work with - and it's only because he's so far off the pace that he's really not in your face. Something for which Michael Schumacher is probably extremely grateful. But there he is, pulling indecently good performances out of a half-decent car.
There are others too: Villeneuve, Webber, Coulthard, Ralf Schumacher, Trulli... even Montoya and Fisichella aren't too bad - they're just put in the shade by team mates working at a completely different level.
Let's face it, you have to be pretty damned good to get into F1 in the first place (unless you're a Pay Driver or Yuji Ide of course) so quibbles about how drivers compare always have to accept a certain level of excellence to even get off the ground.
But in a sport so singly defined by the winning, the taking part sometimes gets a teensy bit forgotten. And given how talented and committed all these guys are, that's a bit of a shame.
Hang on! I *DID* mean Bill Paxton! Sheesh!
If you're anything less than a genius driver in a phenomenal team, then however great your achievements, you can be ignored in the noisier static of the media.
Nick Heidfeld for instance (apparently no taller than an Action Man in real life, and so always subject to visibility problems) is a consistent, clever and reliable driver. And very fast on a good day. His 2006 hasn't exactly been fab, but it's certainly not been a disaster either, and he's still done some great driving. It just happens to have been eclipsed by the front runners.
Felipe Massa too has been nothing less than workmanlike (in that he goes around demolishing things...) and has quietly done a good job helping the Ferrari campaign. You only really tend to notice the errors of course.
Nico Rosberg gets talked up as F1's David Beckham - a vaguely plausible comparison until you realise that he actually looks more like a blonde girl with mumps than an international footballer. And with a couple of great races already this year (Bahrain & Europe), he stands a chance of stepping out of his dad's not inconsiderable shadow.
His dad's big shadow is not merely middle-age spread: he was an awesome racer (note the word 'racer', not simply 'driver') during the eighties - fast, fearless, fair and supremely gifted. If Nico has some of that in his genes, then it's his duty to all of us to bring it back into the sport.
Takuma Sato has actually been doing a great job, given the tools he has to work with - and it's only because he's so far off the pace that he's really not in your face. Something for which Michael Schumacher is probably extremely grateful. But there he is, pulling indecently good performances out of a half-decent car.
There are others too: Villeneuve, Webber, Coulthard, Ralf Schumacher, Trulli... even Montoya and Fisichella aren't too bad - they're just put in the shade by team mates working at a completely different level.
Let's face it, you have to be pretty damned good to get into F1 in the first place (unless you're a Pay Driver or Yuji Ide of course) so quibbles about how drivers compare always have to accept a certain level of excellence to even get off the ground.
But in a sport so singly defined by the winning, the taking part sometimes gets a teensy bit forgotten. And given how talented and committed all these guys are, that's a bit of a shame.
Hang on! I *DID* mean Bill Paxton! Sheesh!
Jun 26, 2006
Half-time 2006: Ifs & Buts
"If..." goes the old commentators' cliche, "is F1 spelled backwards". Not at the school I went to, it's not matey: that's just poor spelling, which tells you more about the parlous state of the education system and the calibre of F1 pundits than what a bitch Lady Luck can be when she's sat back watching the GP.
Still, as we sit here at something approximating half-time, it is one of those phrases that seems to make sense of a season of crushing predictability, random incident and fateful decision.
What would have happened if McLaren had a genuine combo of speed and reliability, rather than the general absence of either? What if Honda got their aero issues cleared up months back? Well, in truth, they'd probably still both be floundering in Renault's supreme wake, with only Ferrari probably looking like they'd made any comeback at all.
What if Aguri had a proper chassis back in March? Not much change there either: Ide still wouldn't know how to drive it, and Sato would probably just crash it a bit quicker. (Let's face it, he's only had such a 'clean' season because he's not going fast enough to have an accident...)
If Schumacher hadn't been sent to the back of the grid, would he have won in Monaco? Certainly not if I'd been a steward, because he wouldn't have even been taking part. But what if he had been able to park better than that old woman off the 'Driving School' programme? Would he have got away with it then?
Parking skills are something Fernando Alonso is likely to need to develop with his move to McLaren next year. Oh, and the patience of a saint if Raikkonen's 5 wasted seasons there are anything to go by. I wonder if he's regretting that decision just yet...
There are still lots of ifs surrounding the 2007 driver market, most of which rest on Michael Schumacher. Fisichella clearly hasn't been re-signed by Renault as their choice for first driver, and Maranello don't know if they'll have Schumi or Kimi (They surely won't have both).
Also, you have to assume that some 2007 decisions may also hinge on 2008, when Prodrive joins the grid. They're not going to be the bigger names of course, but this is chaos theory writ large, where everything affects everything else.
And there are still ifs surrounding the sport itself, despite the GPMA teams signing up for 2008. If Mad Max continues to mess with the future of engines and so-on, tossing grenades into the mix, then there's still plenty that could happen. Including manufacturers simply walking away from F1 forever.
Any ifs for the rest of this season? Well, probably plenty; but none likely to change the outcome of the Championship sadly. After anticipating a really close, competitive season, it's been quite a letdown. Let's just hope those ifs at can at least add a bit of excitement.
Still, as we sit here at something approximating half-time, it is one of those phrases that seems to make sense of a season of crushing predictability, random incident and fateful decision.
What would have happened if McLaren had a genuine combo of speed and reliability, rather than the general absence of either? What if Honda got their aero issues cleared up months back? Well, in truth, they'd probably still both be floundering in Renault's supreme wake, with only Ferrari probably looking like they'd made any comeback at all.
What if Aguri had a proper chassis back in March? Not much change there either: Ide still wouldn't know how to drive it, and Sato would probably just crash it a bit quicker. (Let's face it, he's only had such a 'clean' season because he's not going fast enough to have an accident...)
If Schumacher hadn't been sent to the back of the grid, would he have won in Monaco? Certainly not if I'd been a steward, because he wouldn't have even been taking part. But what if he had been able to park better than that old woman off the 'Driving School' programme? Would he have got away with it then?
Parking skills are something Fernando Alonso is likely to need to develop with his move to McLaren next year. Oh, and the patience of a saint if Raikkonen's 5 wasted seasons there are anything to go by. I wonder if he's regretting that decision just yet...
There are still lots of ifs surrounding the 2007 driver market, most of which rest on Michael Schumacher. Fisichella clearly hasn't been re-signed by Renault as their choice for first driver, and Maranello don't know if they'll have Schumi or Kimi (They surely won't have both).
Also, you have to assume that some 2007 decisions may also hinge on 2008, when Prodrive joins the grid. They're not going to be the bigger names of course, but this is chaos theory writ large, where everything affects everything else.
And there are still ifs surrounding the sport itself, despite the GPMA teams signing up for 2008. If Mad Max continues to mess with the future of engines and so-on, tossing grenades into the mix, then there's still plenty that could happen. Including manufacturers simply walking away from F1 forever.
Any ifs for the rest of this season? Well, probably plenty; but none likely to change the outcome of the Championship sadly. After anticipating a really close, competitive season, it's been quite a letdown. Let's just hope those ifs at can at least add a bit of excitement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
