By John Sharpe
March 16 2005

There are more cracks and backdoors in the way the FIA creates regulations than in all of Microsoft’s Windows OS's combined. Two weeks ago at the Australian Grand Prix we witnessed something that I found to be very dishonorable and flat out wrong. BAR, running out of the points and on the verge of finishing both cars in the race, peeled Jenson Button and Takuma Sato off of the circuit and into their respective garages. Neither of them took the checkered flag.
For as long as man has created rules to govern themselves by, there have been those who challenged not only the validity of a particular rule but also sought to find ways around it. The regulation that the FIA implemented regarding the “two race rule” for engines states;

“Each driver may use no more than one engine for two consecutive events (grand prix). Should it become necessary for a driver to use another engine, he will drop ten places on the starting grid at that event and may not use another engine until the end of the next event. Any driver who failed to finish the race at the first of two events may start the second with a different engine without incurring a penalty.”

In that statement, I do not see in the language any mention of circumstances relating to racing or non-racing issues. When a new regulation is put into place to take away down force, ALL engineers instinctively look for the best way around the rule to gain that down force back. But it is done within the confines of the new regulation.
Theoretically, when Michael Schumacher had his shunt with Nick Heidfeld in the first race he was able to continue. However, the scrape planted the seed in which he would be able to profit by later. The accident provided Schumacher the opportunity to ditch the old and refit his Ferrari with a brand new engine.
Now whether or not there was any actual damage to the engine, remember, Michael did continue on for a short while before parking the Ferrari out of the points, we will never know. I did though have the first impression that Ferrari was going to take advantage of the regulation and not take the checkered flag the moment I watched the accident.

There was no bending or curving of the regulation. BAR blatantly broke the rule. In fact, I have a hard time believing that they didn’t know what the integrity of the rule actually was. The rest of the field that was out of the points had no problem finishing the race. What BAR did in my mind bordered on cheating. Cheating is a harsh word to use I know because it means that there was intent on their part to manipulate the rules. In the end however, that’s what they did. BAR was not going to finish in the points. They wouldn’t gain any advantage by finishing the race. BAR decided to cheat the rest of the field and pit their cars. The question is now, why them and not anyone else. Do you mean to tell me that the rest of the F1 grid has never tried to stretch the rules as far they could go without tearing? Of course not but, the Honda engine has become something of a hand grenade. Reliability concerning the Honda engine resides currently in one area it would seem – blowing up. BAR say they have worked through the issues clocking more than 3000km of testing in Jerez, Spain.
I don’t want to get into a BAR bash session, Lord knows I could right now, but I wont. I’ll just say this; When you have a new engine for a typically hot and humid circuit that is a killer on drivers as well as engines, of course you look to do well with a fresh engine. The rest of the grid will still be using a tired engine.

Should BAR be sent ten places back on the grid Sunday? Absolutely. Will they, of course not. But the FIA has made it crystal clear that this is not to happen again.

“A distinction will now be made between failing to finish and choosing not to finish, the former is normally accidental or beyond the control of the driver while the later is not.”

In that statement made by the FIA it went on to basically say that the team of any driver failing to finish the first of two races explain the circumstances as to why they couldn’t continue to the Stewards. In essence , it closed the very loophole BAR and possibly Ferrari exploited.
Though Schumacher did have an accident, he was able to continue but ultimately retired. There are questions surrounding that incident as well but no one is talking loud. Toyota though have been very vocal regarding the BAR matter and because the two are close rivals as well as both being Japanese car manufacturers there is some pride I imagine at stake. If the FIA though were to penalize BAR then they would have to investigate their beloved Ferrari. That isn’t about to happen. So BAR will get off with a, “don’t do that again,” and probably go on to score some needed points in Sepang.

Our own Red Bull Racing does look strong in light of these conditions. The Cosworth TJ 2005 V10 had no technical or operational problems and ran a masterful race in Melbourne.
All of this raises the stakes at RBR and Cosworth with both of them keen to take the challenge head on. Going into the Malaysian GP nothing motivates a person, team or driver more than seeing positive results where skepticism was present. Based on last year’s performance, questions abound with respect to the Cosworth engine program that Red Bull Racing inherited. Cosworth and Red Bull have answered back with their strong four – seven finish in Melbourne but also in the way of their current 2006 2.8 liter – V8.

While Mclaren, Williams, BAR and Toyota struggled to match pace with RBR, all but BAR will be using the same engine. This should definitely answer the reliability of the Cosworth engine. It is a much light and stronger power plant but can it actually hold up in the craziness of the Malaysian weather conditions?
According to Cosworth’s Head of F1 Development, Alexander Hitzinger,

“Nothing will change on the engines in Malaysia, only some inspections will be carried out. The running conditions for the engines will be quite similar to those in Melbourne, which means we will not reduce the rev limit. Like for every race, the engine calibration will be optimized for the conditions and the circuit characteristics.” He went on to say,

“There is still a lot of work to be done to achieve our objectives but we are now in a much better position than we have been for quite some time.”

The RB1 has a very straightforward aero design but with clean lines that develop nicely into a tight compact package in the rear, folding behind the side pods. As with the rest of the grid, the sculpted front “butterfly” wing is very dramatic and utilizes that dropped scoop to maximize down force. With airflow being highly important to cool the engine, the Malaysian race will provide problems for engines that have airflow problems.
Cosworth provides RBR with a window of variables from which their engines can be run at in different types of conditions. Red Bull Racing and Cosworth enjoy a great working relationship and as long as the team can provide an effective aero package in Sepang with the cooling requirements met, they should have no problem running the engine well within the optimal operational window. Even with the advantage gained by BAR for this weekends race, I still tip RBR for a better finish. If there was one indicator that leads me to this conclusion it would have to be reliability. Cosworth has it, Honda doesnt.

I am very high on Red Bull Racing at the moment and with the fantastic job Cosworth has been doing. Though BAR made a play and got away with fixing the rules to meet their needs in Melbourne, it still doesn’t alleviate the fact that they have little or zero confidence in the Honda engine. We wont know for sure though once again until Sunday. I truly hope that a partnership between RBR and Cosworth could be forged with both sides working together to improve both sides of the operation.
If the TJ 2005 V8 proves successful once again in Malaysia I am going to find it hard to believe that Red Bull would still be looking to leave Cosworth.

John Sharpe
www.racingbulls.co.uk
Tayvan32@aol.com