Team Orders at Sauber?

As I noted in my my previous post, WeBuyAnyCar(F1), I'm broadly in support of customer cars in F1 - but only if a high degree of Independence can be maintained. The events of the Malaysian Grand Prix, where some have accused the Sauber team of ordering Perez to stay behind Alonso in deference to the team's relationship with Ferrari, have reinforced some of these thoughts.

First thing to make clear is that I do not believe Sauber did order Perez to hold off today. The radio message was, “Checo [Perez], be careful, we need this position, we need this position”. Though this was a disappointing message to hear as the race built to a thrilling crescendo it sounded more like a team telling their young driver not to take too many risks while battling for the lead. If I was to paraphrase, I would understand the message to be, "Checo, have go at him, but don't be daft sunshine"!

At the end of 2009, when BMW unceremoniously pulled the plug on its F1 programme, Peter Sauber came back out of retirement, presumably investing huge sums of his own money again, to rescue the team bearing his name. The last two years have been tough, with sponsorship hard to come by (compare the number of adverts on Perez's overalls in the press conference compared with Hamilton and Alonso). But the team has survived. At the end of the race Peter Sauber was in tears, along with others in his team, with this result not only vindicating the personal investment and struggle of the last two years, but also going a very long way to sealing the team's future, with the prize money, points and exposure to potential investors. All that would have been wiped out if Perez had taken off a front wing in an ambitious late-lunge on Alonso. Personally I think it's to Sauber's great credit they allowed Perez to push as hard as he did for as long as he did - it would have been so easy to ask him to maintain the gap back to Hamilton. Not only did they not do that, but they also still allowed him to fight for the win - but to just be a bit sensible in doing it.

It's also been asserted the radio message also put Perez off his stride, leading to the slight off-track excursion at Turn 14. Again, I disagree. Remember the infamous 'maintain the gap' message to Mark Webber at the British Grand Prix last year? Well, when we heard that on the world feed it seemed like it came on the last two laps - it later turned out it was several laps before then. It's perfectly possible that the message to Perez was a few laps before we heard it - and the fact that he was pushing enough to go off track a few laps later could then be read as further evidence Sauber did not call off the chase.

A final contention I've also seen on this is that Perez ignored the team call. This makes even less sense to me. Not only then would he be damaging his relationship with Sauber, but also with the Ferrari team so many think he will be driving for sooner rather than later. Can anyone see Ferrari replacing Massa with someone who clearly can't cope with the radio message, "Checo, Alonso is quicker than you"?! My personal belief in this instance is well and truly that there was no order - from either Sauber or Ferrari - and that the two teams/drivers were racing, and racing hard - albeit with a nervous team management asking Perez to keep the car out of the wall.

However, I have digressed in this post even more than Maldonado digressed across the gravel in qualifying, so back to my original point about customer cars. When teams are perceived to be beholden to other teams, it affects the credibility of the sport. In this case, although the relationship between Ferrari and Sauber does seem to have some political dimension, it is predominantly a simple engine supply relationship. But even that has allowed discussion which detracts slightly from what should be seen as one of the best feel-good results of recent seasons. Look at the sheer number of conspiracy theories generated by one small radio message! Imagine how much more of this we'd get if Ferrari did have a full customer team!

I'm still in support of customer cars, if they can help bring in new teams who will go on to be serious and independent race teams (even if they use customer cars permanently). But to open the door to relationships where teams are believed to have no independence would have a negative effect on the sport, with more and more talking points becoming about how the parent team has held back their customer. The sport should think long and hard before allowing changes that permit this to happen.

Lewis Rocks! In Defence of Hamilton

As the impassioned Lewis Hamilton fan I am, I read Neil Goff's post on F1Podcast with interest. It makes some good points about Lewis' career, but on others I disagreed, and thought Lewis needed a defence - so I'm writing this post as a reply to Neil to say - Lewis will rock F1 again, just you wait and see!

Neil is pretty spot on when he says many (or all?!) of Lewis' seasons in F1 have contained some serious errors. But which driver can honestly look back at a season and say they haven't done the same? Senna, Schumacher, Prost - they all made their fair share of mistakes too. The mistakes are part of the reason I find Hamilton such a joy to watch too. As a Mansell fan in the 1990s you were never entirely sure if his next move was going to be one of sheer genius or folly, and you get the same rollercoaster ride with Lewis. Its a shame the pair seem to have a bit of an antagonistic relationship, because they are actually quite similar racers - in a positive way. Saying that I do think Hamilton has a clear edge over Mansell in natural ability and speed. And as a huge Mansell fan that's a major compliment.

So does Lewis make more mistakes than others? There were moments in his rookie year he did make mistakes, but they generally came at the high-pressure stage at the end of the season, and its unfair to criticise a rookie for feeling the heat of a title charge, especially when he still beat his team mate. 2008 had, arguably, more scrappy moments, memorably the pit lane incident in Canada and the famous penalty in Spa. But I still hold firm in my contention that he won the championship in the 2nd best car - that Ferrari was quicker. And this I think is the key point - excepting his first season Hamilton has, I believe, never had the quickest car on the grid. And when he is in that situation he has a clear tendancy to over-drive in an effort to reach the front of the field, a position his head tells him is where he should alwasy be. Often this leads to race like last year's Chinese or German Grand Prix, when he was absolutely on fire. There are also races however where the head really need to over-rule the heart and accept the win is not on, and the fight is to simply get what you can from the race.

His lifestyle outside of F1 holds little interest for me (heck, not much outside motorsport does hold much interest for me!). It's his life and he can live it how he chooses. But I would agree that last year, amongst some other issues, he did let his life outside F1 impact on his racing. I imagine no-one is more disappointed with that than Lewis himself, and, while I'm not sure I agree with Neil that he has taken his F1 career for granted, I do agree he would benefit from refocusing on what he does best. I hope the tail end of 2011 showed signs of that being to be the case.

I'm also not sure I can agree that Hamilton was any less of a rookie by the time he came to F1 than other drivers. He certainly had a great apprenticeship at the team, but I remember there being serious doubts about whether he was being brought into F1 too soon in 2007. He may have had a great deal of support through the feeder series, but he nailed his opportunities in each one - this was a driver that was coming through come Hell or high water. No matter how much Hamilton had his feet under the table at McLaren there is really no way that a rookie should be beating a double World Champion, who has so much more experience of the sport. The only way to do that is through your racing ability. However bad their relationship got, Alonso clearly sees this himself, as he always picks out Hamilton as his biggest rival. Detractors often say the team was moulded around Hamilton and Alonso never stood a chance. I can't disagree with this more - McLaren are far too astute an operation to hire a double World Champions and to then throw their resources at a young rookie. The way Jenson Button has (to his great credit) come into McLaren and made it his home show that the team is genuinely an open operation, giving a fair crack of the whip to both drivers.

Why the above make make it sound like I am an unabashed Hamilton-apologist this couldn't be further from the case. He makes mistakes and often I sit shaking my head at some of his decisions on track. But 2011 is the one year that stands out to me (and I'm sure many Lewis fans) as the first where, on an overall level, there was a sense of real disappointment. The car wasn't quick enough, but as said already, he has outperformed his car before, in 2009 especially. In 2010 too its pretty clear to me that Hamilton was taking his car to levels of performance it really didn't warrant. But in 2011 the pressure of constantly feeling the need to try to out-perform his car, and still not being able to fight the leaders, clearly exposed cracks that led to a pretty torrid season. It really all started to go bad in Monaco. The poor grid slot (which was out of his control) led to that reckless and impetuous move on Massa at the hairpin, which set the tone for much of the season. There is a clear case to be made that over the last five years Hamilton has been F1's best overtaker, but 2011 was littered with errors in this passing attempts. From half-moves that went terribly wrong (on Massa in Singapore), to over optimistic moves, doomed to failure (like the one on Massa in India),  and to moves which were just plain odd (the Spa overtake on Kamui) it seemed like Hamilton had lost his touch.

But lets write 2011 off now. There were clearly a range of issues going on in Lewis' head last year, and we can only hope these have been ironed out so that we get the old Lewis back, hopefully seeing his at the very least win the inter-team battle at McLaren. I'm not ashamed to say I was one of those thinking Jenson Button had made a big mistake joining McLaren (though I respected his balls in taking on the challenge). I'm also not ashamed to say just how wrong I was to under-estimated JB. It's impossible to know how well he was really performing in some of the cars BAR/Honda provided for him, but it definitely seems he is currently in the form of his career. However, I still believe an on-form Hamilton will beat Button - but the battle for supremacy at McLaren is all set to be a tasty fight, and it's making me look forward to 2012 almost as much as the battle for the title!

WeBuyAnyCar(F1)

The issue of customer cars has reappeared on the F1 radar over the last couple of weeks, initially as a result of comments from Bernie, who said they could be used as way of bringing in new teams. Entrants could, he argued, be given two years grace with customer cars before needing to make the step to become full manufacturers. And now Luca di Montezemolo is using the lack of Italians in F1 as an excuse to peddle his desire to see customer cars in F1 again. I suppose you can't blame him for trying.

In broad terms I'm in favour of customer cars. Anything which could help expand the grid a little is a good idea. As far as I'm aware the F1 rule book still allows for a grid of 26 cars, since the grid was expanded in 2010. Personally I think 28 is probably the maximum the grid could hold, so we could realistically have at least two more cars on the grid, possibly four.

The issue I have with schemes like Luca's is that I would want to see incoming teams be able to compete and develop their own style, without being overly bound to the organisation they are buying a car from. Ferrari struggle to give equal treatment to the two cars they are allowed already - imagine how they'd treat a third car, whether it's an in-house entry or a privateer entering a customer car!

The Red Bull / Torro Rosso partnership gives a good indication of how the junior partner in such relationships can be left at a disadvantage when they are beholden to the main team. In 2008 Torro Rosso beat Red Bull in the championship, scoring the Red Bull family's first win on the way. But this was in the organisation's formative years, with Adrian Newey yet to mould the main Red Bull team into the race winning behemoth we see today. In the coming season I'd argue that the relationship is likely to hurt Torro Rosso, as the team acts as an incubator for Red Bull's latest pair of Bright Young Things - in a similar vein to di Montezemolo's thoughts on mandating Italian drivers at a Ferrari customer team. The mid-field battle looks likely to be very close fought this year, and Torro Rosso's two rookies could well cost it dear in the final championship standings - but placing well in the championship standings is not what Torro Rosso is there to do. It's there to act as a test team for Red Bull, and as fans I can't help but feel we lose out from that arrangement.

Though I'm sure those with better knowledge of the sport's history than myself will be able to give multiple examples of this happening throughout F1's past, I don't believe it would have to be that way with customer cars. After all, Lotus' first F1 victory in a World Championship event didn't come from the main Team Lotus entered cars, but from a Rob Walker Racing customer Lotus, driven by Stirling Moss. It would be great to see more team's coming in as customers with the independence to use their package to its full potential, without being made to move over for the main team should they find themselves ahead. That would risk doing the sport more harm than good.

The Prodrive organisation was due to enter F1 as a customer team in 2010, but complaints from other teams ended this possibility*, and for now customer cars have been banned in the sporting regulations. If we give Bernie the benefit of the doubt on his comments, and assume it wasn't just another rent-a-quote moment it's quite easy to picture an organisation like Prodrive coming in as a customer team while they ramp up their capacity to construct their own car. Strong performances with a customer car, combined with their proven engineering ability would help entice sponsors and a serious new team could emerge.

The desire to see fully independent customer teams may be unrealistic for a variety of reasons and, despite my criticism above, there is a clear argument that Torro Rosso would not be competing at the level it does now if it was still Minardi. Its debatable if they would be in the sport at all now if they were still Minardi. So maybe I should give more credence to Ferrari's point of view. If being beholden to a 'parent' team was a temporary measure to help get an organisation like Prodrive on the grid, could I see it as a bad thing? In a perfect world maybe not, but we live in the real world, and I think that even with my concerns there is plenty of scope  for customer cars to be one of the options the sport re-examines more closely, along with the budget cap idea, to ensure a health grid in the years to come, especially with the current rumours of financial difficulties within some teams.

------------------

*Williams was one of the principle teams to raise objections to Prodrive entering with customer cars, which seems ironic considering they started in the sport as a customer team. However times change, and the landscape Williams started their F1 journey in was a far cry from the landscape in 2010.

Women in Motorsport - #IWD

Marussia's announcement yesterday that Maria de Villota has joined the team as a test driver caused a fair amount of consternation on Twitter, and was, depending on your level of cynicism, well timed to still be relevent for International Women's Day (IWD) today, or spectacularly badly timed to miss IWD by 24 hours. I suppose I can't talk - this post will only make it out on IWD with 15 minutes to go!

The two stories (de Villota and IWD, keep up) have reminded me of a couple of related thoughts that regularly slosh around my brain which gives me an excuse to let them loose onto this blog! The first of thoughts is that I would genuinely love to see a female racer breaking into Formula 1. I see no reason why a woman couldn't compete in the sport, and I'd love to see it happen. But F1 (and motorsport in general) is a testosterone-driven environment, and historically many have been dismissive of female drivers. In her book, The Pits, Beverley Turner (1) for example suggested that many in the sport recognised that women could have the talent to race in F1, but either lacked the kind of motivation to win that a man has or, even worse, just weren't pretty enough to be promoted to the sport. That's a pretty major pair of prejudices!

It seems attitudes are changing however, as evidenced by Christian Horner's recent comments that he expects to see a woman race in F1 within a decade. But, while team managers may be becoming more open to the thought of women drivers, again I have to put my cynical hat on. Its impossible to mention women in motorsport for more than a few lines without coming to mention Danica Patrick. Danica has proved two things to the male dominated world of motorsport. Firstly, positively, she has proved that women can race with, and beat the boys. Secondly, with more negative consequences, she has also proved that women can be pretty in a race car, and be a highly marketable commodity for teams and sponsors. Do an image search for Danica on Google - you will struggle to find a picture of her in clothes, let alone in a race car. I have no issue with this per say. Its up to every individual to choose whether to pose for semi-naked pictures - certainly many male F1 drivers have no issue when the pay check is right! But for female racers it does serve to confirm the stereotype that women need to be 'marketable' in order to get into the sport. And that is a negative trend, and may help explain to some extent some of the thawing of views on this subject.

It should be said that Maria de Villota seems to have avoided the Danica Patrick route off getting her kit of to stoke attention (amongst other things). Do a Google search for Maria and you do get a page full of pictures of a racing driver, rather than of a swimwear model. But the news has still been met with regret from many commenters, such as F1 Kate, an F1 blogger. This time however, the concern is that her racing career to date simply doesn't support any claim to a place in F1, even as a test driver, and that she is simply buying herself some F1 seat time (probably a token amount), and giving Marussia an easy headline. The reactions seems to suggest that I'm not the only to think therefore that Maria's appearance in F1, however limited, could actually do further damage to women's place in the sport, as covered excellently by Joe Saward in his blog post, 'Lets Get Real'. There is still a lot of prejudice in the sport towards women, and by bringing in a pay-driver in order to raise funds and grab some headlines can only confirm the prejudices to many people. It has been refreshing however to see so many commenters (see this on F1 Fanatic for example) taking a positive mindset towards the idea of women in F1, if not to the idea of Maria de Villota in F1.

Instead of forcing women through the ranks, we need to look at helping women access the sport, and encourage those with talent to stay in the sport. In this way more women drivers will be able to emerge through the ranks with, hopefully, many talented women starting to rise to a level where they too can show they can beat the boys, as Danica has done in Indycars. More can be done to promote the sport and break down any barriers stopping more women taking up the sport - I hope initiatives like the FIA's Women & Motor Sport Commision can start to tackle this, working with those women already in the sport, and identifying those outside the sport who may get involved to find out what can be done to help more women and girld into the sport at all levels.

All of which brings me to the second thought bouncing around the hollow space between my tabs, which is, to my mind, one of the main reasons many women are put off motorsport - grid girls. Bloody grid girls.There still exists the out of date notion in our sport that draping semi-naked girls over cars in some way adds 'glamour' to the sport. The only sense in which the word glamour can be used in this sense in in the same way as it is used to describe 'Glamour Magazines' - the particularly cheap and tacky end of the men's mag market. As noted before, I was always a big Jordan GP fan, but hated the tendency of the team to use flesh to promote itself. As soon as I heard there was a new 'glamour' model named Jorden I realised there was a sad inevitability to seeing her ample charms poking out around various bits of yellow Jordan GP carbon-fibre.

This is the image many women see when they look at motorsport. They see the tacky grid girls. They see the dolly bird lined up as the drivers go to the podium. It doesn't put all women off, but it does put many off. They see their roles defined on the screen - the boys do the racing, the girls get their bits out and applaud the winner. Even low level club racing falls into this trap, trying to raise a series' profile by making it more glamorous by adding flesh to the podium/grid. I really can't say how much this irritates me, and I know it irritates many of the female fans I watch the sport with.

The worst part is that this doesn't even accurately reflect the real role of women in modern motorsport. Last August I attended a taster day to get experience of marshaling before doing a full day on the banks. On the day we met a range of people around the circuit involved in the operation of the event, and many were women. At one point I was on the grid, seeing how race starts were organised. The chief start line marshal, the post chief on Post 1, the Clerk of the Course, the driver on P3 (and other drivers on the grid) and the Chief Marshal for the meeting were all women. In the next week I found a video of the event online (yes, OK, I was looking for it to see if my heroic pushing of a stranded car was on there!) - the only women in the video were the presenter and the grid girls. Technically only part of the grid girls got in many shots - their arse and legs mostly. Of course you can't thrust behind-the-scenes people in front of the camera to prove the point - but to anyone watching that video, yet again, the roles were clear - men are drivers battling for victory, women are scenery, battling to keep their cheeks in impossibly tight pants.

To be clear, I do not want grid girls banning - I want the sport to grown out of them. I also do not mean any disrespect to grid girls themselves. They are all committed to what they do - and no doubt put up with a lot of hassle while doing it. Many are big motorsport fans themselves, often involved in other areas of the sport too.

And so I leave this post with some links for any aspiring girl racers out there. Celebrate International Women's Day by seeing what motorsport can offer you and get involved -
Girlracer
British Womens Racing Drivers Club

I'm off to await hate mail from fans of grid girls (and possibly from gird girls themselves)!

-------------
(1) Beverley Turner's book is a string of unrelated complaints about F1, some of which are spurious in the extreme, and some of which hit the nail bang on the head. From the point of view of someone from outside the paddock, the chapter on women in F1 seems to be more valid than many other of the complaints, even if some of the points in that chapter are still a bit wide of the mark. Its worth reading though just to see how much one person can dislike Eddie Irvine!

Cum On Feel The Noise?

While marshalling at the Eastwood Stages rally at Mallory Park a month ago I started to pick up the first rumblings of potential issues regarding noise levels at the circuit. In the last week I read on the Motorsport Musings blog that, sadly, there are indeed issues around noise at Mallory, which could see in-week testing being restricted, amongst other petty restrictions on the circuit.

We tend to think of any litigious trend as being a thoroughly modern phenomenon, alongside the rise in personal injury claims by people lacking the required intelligence to walk walk down a street without being attacked by inanimate objects. However, noise complaints about motorsport probably started on the day the first internal combustion engine was fired up, and will no doubt be with us for a long time to come (ironically the likely long-term trend towards the much reviled electric / hybrid cars could actually help save the sport from noise issues in the future).

Noise complaints from local residents stopped the Crystal Palace circuit in London from getting back to its pre-war halcyon days when the Second World War ended, restricting the circuit to only 5 days racing a year - a condition that lasted for most of the post-war racing years at the venue (1). Although there was a clear history of racing at Crystal Palace, the intervening years of the Second World War saw huge social change in the country. Pre-war people 'knew their place' and had little power to complain about noise even if they chose to. The war changed all that, and you can see why those living around a tranquil London city park would have concerns about racing being held on too regular a basis. Only five days a year seems harsh though which ever way you look at it!

When reopening Donington Park in the 1960s, Tom Wheatcroft also came up against noise complaints, from both residents of Castle Donington and from Rolls-Royce, who had set up a base at the venue in the years the circuit had fallen fallow. The complaints from both sides however were dismissed when it was considered that Donington is smack-bang next door to East Midlands Airport. Tom Wheatcroft gives an example of the ridiculousness of the noise complaints in his entertaining autobiography (2), recalling how Rolls Royce told an inspector race engines would stop their staff communicating safely, only for an incoming plane to virtually deafen the inspector. When the inspector enquired when the Rolls Royce manager didn't seem too perturbed he answered, foolishly, that they'd all got so used to the planes they didn't even notice them! Despite winning this earlier fight however the circuit still, frustratingly, had more issues after the recent troubles. Despite becoming a key venue in the British (and World) motorsport scene over the 40 years since Tom reopened it, it seems the gap in racing of less than a year caused by the failed British GP bid was enough to give the NIMBYs a new chance to attack Donington, with last year's race schedule needing to be cut back due to restrictions on the number of loud days it could hold.

Some of the complaints made are even more blatant examples of NIMBY-ism than at Donington however, with people seemingly determined to have their own way no matter the consequence on others - such people often seem to be in a minority of the local population too. In recent weeks an appeal court judge ruled in favour of Mildenhall Speedway, when a local couple complained that noise from the venue was causing them distress. The couple had claimed not to know when moving in that the speedway was so close to their house. It's pretty astounding to think that anyone could move into a house without doing enough research on the area to know a motorsport venue is only 500 yards away. Even more astounding is that the case needed to get to appeal - the original High Court ruling was in favour of the couple, leaving Mildenhall Stadium facing costs of £1 million. In this instance justice was, eventually, done, and it has to be hoped the judgement can be called upon as precedent in any future case. (See Matt Salisbury's blog for a more commentary on the Mildenham case.)

As a motorsport fan I find these noise complaints depressing in the extreme. The actions of a few grumpy neighbours can have a serious effect on the sport - not to mention the livelihood of those involved in both running the venues and the wider motorsport industry. Motorsport technology is one of the success stories of modern British manufacturing. That success story is built upon a bedrock of sporting activity over the past century (and more) at circuits across the UK. The track days and experience events that have become so popular over the last decade also fuel British industry, from the cottage-manufacturing level all the way up to some of the country's major manufacturing companies, employing thousands of people. Motor racing is a part of the UK's recent heritage (especially, ironically, its rural heritage) and its such a shame to see it being restricted by the complaints of a minority of people.

Despite my natural reaction to noise complaints, the legal cases for noise complaints are rarely cut and dry, as the well-known case at Croft illustrate. While we fans may want to characterise each complaint as being clear cut, historic agreements around the number of days allocated to noisy events can often underpin cases, as seems to be the case in the Croft example (though there were many 'intricasies' to that case, including defendants and claimants being divorced from each other!). I can understand why someone would not be happy if they saw a constant increase in the number of days their peaceful meditation was disturbed. Plus, although the sound of race engines is a key reason we love the sport, in some instances a small reduction in noise levels can be enough to satisfy planning conditions. In the Mallory case quoted above it seems that increased enforcement of an existing 105db limit for testing could prevent the sessions being removed. At Croft there have been indications that keeping cars under a 100bd limit could enable some races (in certain circumstances at least) to run outside of the restrictions on the number of 'noisy days' the circuit can host. Would we really rather see events being canned than stick to these noise levels? How much would we really lose in terms of car performance and the sound of the cars by sticking to such limits? If sticking to these noise levels could safeguard racing at the great venues we have across the UK I would be in favour, but this would need to be seen as a clear commitment from the sport - with a corresponding commitment from planning authorities to respect the sports efforts to reduce its impact and to reject speculative complaints from minorities in the local population which go against decades of motorsport precedent.

References

(1) - Motor Racing Circuits in England, Peter Swinger

(2) - Thunder in the Park, Tom Wheatcroft

The Bourne Supremacy (Sorry)

A few weeks ago I head about an event coming up later this year on the Marshal's thread on Ten Tenth's. More details are now coming out, so I wanted to share it, as it sounds like an absolutely fantastic day. The town of Bourne in Lincolnshire will be inviting motorsport fans to line the streets on Sunday 7th October for a celebration of its historic association with Formula 1. The day will involve static displays and a parade through the town's streets featuring classic Grand Prix machinery.

For such a small town, Bourne really does have quite a remarkable pedigree in Grand Prix racing (and in wider motorsports). The historic ERA and BRM teams were both based in the town - usually in workshops owned by local resident, entrepreneur and racer Raymond Mays, who played a leading role in both teams. The involvement of Bourne in motorsport continues today, with the Pilbeam Racing Designs company, founded by ex-BRM designer Mike Pilbeam*, still based in the town.

Bourne has held an F1 demonstration in 1999 to mark the 100th anniversary of Raymond Mays' birth.This year's event will commemorate 50 year's since BRM's 1 and only World Championship winning season, when Graham Hill brought home the driver's title, while the team brought the Constructor's Championship home to Bourne. To mark this achievement the event will be aiming to bring as many classic GP cars from the 1962 F1 season to the streets, with BRM, Lotus and Lola cars on show. In addition there will be a wide range of cars on display from BRM's history, and a general 60's theme to the day.


As soon as I heard about the event I threw my hat in for marshalling duties, and its one of the events I'm looking forward to most this year already. Just in case you were in any doubt as to whether you should attend, have a look (or rather, have a listen!) to the video here, and tell me you don't think its a great idea!

You can find out more about the plans for BRM day at the following links:
BRM day website
BRM Day on Twitter
BRM Day on Facebook


*Father of Ciaran Pilbeam, Mark Webber's race engineer at Red Bull.

(Picture credit - Raymond Mays Memorial)

Motorsport Statues

I had an email today from someone at The University of Sheffield who is running a project to catalogue sporting statues. The project has a website (Sporting Statues), which will eventually act as a gateway for people to explore details of these global sporting monuments.

The aim of the project however isn't simply to catalogue statues*. As its being run by a university there are rather loftier ambitions for the data they collect. I must admit to being unsure what interesting output one could make about statues, but have a look at the video below, showing the rise in numbers of football statues across the UK. The way the numbers skyrocket from the mid-1990s took me by surprise, and you have to admit it does make an altogether more interesting research proposition than you would have initially thought - why did we suddenly become so obsessed with commemorating our sports stars in this way?

Anyway, in order to make clever maps (and I'm a sucker for a map at the best of times), the team behind the project need data. They have already logged the following motorsport related statues in the UK - 

• John Surtees, Colin Chapman, Stirling Moss, Roger Clark, Mike Hawthorn and Jim Clark at the entry to Mallory Park
• Senna/Fangio and Roger Williamson outside the Donington Collection (for these statues the team are missing details of the sculpter and dates - so any more info would be great)
• Hawthorn/England at Goodwood 
• Jim Clark at Kilmany
• Jimmie Guthrie and Steve Hislop at Hawick
• Steve Hislop and Joey Dunlop on the Isle of Man
• Joey and Robert Dunlop at Ballymoney
• Donald Campbell in Coniston 
• Bernard Hiett in Reading cemetery

There is also a memorial to Tom Pryce in Ruthin, but the project is focused on actual statues (rather than memorials or busts).


It's always good to ensure motorsport is well represented in any project like this, So if anyone out there knows of any other motorsport statues across the UK that are missing from this list lets pass the information on. Put any extra information down as comments to this blog post and I'll pass them on. Details of the people involved, reasons for the statue (e.g. was it a fan-led idea), and the sculpters and dates are all needed if possible. Alternatively you can send them direct to the project team via either email (info@sportingstatues.com) or via Twitter (@sportingstatues)

 

* For the record, even if Sporting Statues was just an anoraky site I would still be wholeheartedly in favour, being as I am quite an anorak for motorsport. Two great motorsport sites I can spend hours on are the Motor Racing Programme Covers and the Motor Racing Circuits Database sites. Both do exactly what they say on the tin and both are fantastic!

Testing Times

While decorating at the weekend I took the chance to catch up on Peter Windsor's ever excellent Flying Lap podcast*. The discussion was centred around the recent test in Jerez, and re-triggered an idea I had been mulling a few weeks ago - the potential for F1 testing to return in-season, but in a way that brings some commercial benefit to the sport and engages the fans.

While at university in Northampton I used to work as a plate-waiter at Silverstone. Nearly dropping a plate of half-eaten bacon sandwiches on Felipe Massa is the nearest I've ever come to making a mark in the exclusive world of Formula 1. Table waiting was not my forte. I can't say I was dedicated to the job, and was clearly only there for the chance to get paid to glimpse F1 cars on track. I remember spending my lunch breaks watching the cars and wondering why the invited guests in the executive suites had bothered turning up when they so blatantly had no interest in the sport at all. It was also surprising see very few fans at the tests - I don't even know if the public were able to enter the circuit on the day. The pre-season tests in Spain always seem to attract a decent crowd for a non-competitive even however, as petrol-fume deprived fans get their first chance in months to see and hear the cars.

So, like Peter Windsor, I'm convinced there must be a way to attract paying fans to test events if they feel they are getting something from the event, with the income generated going towards the cost of putting the cars on track. After all, the only reason in-season testing is banned is through a voluntary agreement between the teams to save money. So, my idea is to hold a three day test, with teams mandated to run a combination of at least one race driver and a young driver (plus other drivers if the team chose). On each day of the test the vast proportion of track time will be given over to testing, but each day will also include a competitive element in order to give something to the fans who cough up to attend. These would be (in my blue-sky vision) - Day 1, a one lap sprint with each car getting three timed laps to try to set the day's fastest time. Day 2, a short race in non-F1 cars featuring F1 drivers. Day 3, a half-hour race featuring the team's young drivers.

In addition to the F1 test and competition, the event would also feature F1 displays off-track, alternative track displays from other motorsports, and plenty of off-track activities such as pit stop challenges and simulators. The teams would also be mandated to put on a range of activities to interact with the fans - competitions for garage access, driver signing sessions etc. In short there would be plenty going on during the event, but with time for the teams to get plenty of testing laps in. The events could even be held as a short series, with 3 to 5 events at European circuits (or further afield if the costs allowed) throughout the year.

The benefits to the teams would primarily come from the gate receipts, but they would also get increased merchandise sales, and it would reintroduce the chance to offer corporate events for sponsors and/or paying guests - the famous prawn-sandwich brigade I served so badly in the early 2000s! Young drivers would also get the chance to gain some experience at driving (and potentially racing) F1 cars in a less pressured environment than a World Championship Grand Prix. F1 can have an image as an aloof sport, removed from its fans, and test days like this could begin to change this perception too.

No doubt some (or all!) aspects of this are a touch pie-in-the-sky. The costs involved in running F1 cars may well mean any such event would need to draw a huge income in order to be viable. A race for young drivers in particular could be an expensive proposition if any collisions occurred, as I'm reliably informed carbon fibre is not cheap! But even if the teams don't break even, the events could be structured in a way that at least mitigates the costs enough to justify holding in-season testing again.

I also suspect FOM may have reservations about such events, potentially feeling they dilute the value of the main Grand Prix, but this is just my hunch.  The sport's management seems to keep such a tight rein on anything F1 related that getting the idea past Bernie may be the biggest barrier, especially if there was to be any competition involved. These elements aren't essential however (though I do believe they would help draw fans), and don't need to necessarily involve F1 cars. Potentially national race series could be brought in with a few club races interspersed through the day with F1 stars as guest drivers. That also would benefit the sport beyond F1, while still providing an extra element for paying spectators.**

Would you attend a 'test' that was arranged like this? If you would how much would you be prepared to pay to go along? I think there would be thousands of fans across the country, especially families, who would love to attend a Grand Prix but simply can't afford it and would be interested in an event like this. I know I'd pay to come to one or more days of such an event (and that's on top of attending the Grand Prix!).

If you were designing a way of bringing back testing in a way that generated some commercial benefits for the teams how would you do it? If anyone out there has any ideas put them in the comments below or Tweet them to me via @ChrisPageNG. If we get some suggestions together I'll see about firing them off at some of the teams or FOTA to see what feedback they have. In recent years there have been free events in the UK featuring the Brawn GP team, McLaren and Red Bull, all drawing big crowds. I'm sure the teams didn't put these on out of the goodness of their hearts, so there must be a way that paying events can be made to work for all concerned. It would certainly be interesting to hear the reasons why this might not be possible from those involved in the sport.

------------------------

*I was listening to Episode 56 of the Flying Lap, 'Looking Back at the Jerez Test' (from about 22:30). You can access this as a video and sign up to receive The Flying Lap from all RSS and Podcast feeds, including iTunes and I heartily recommend it for insight from a great range of people from within F1, including the great drivers and team representatives as well as those behind the scenes and from the F1 community (for example the excellent ScarbsF1 for technical insight and Keith Collantine from F1 Fanatic).

** I would pay many, many pounds to watch F1 stars racing a grid full of classic Minis. And to forcing Mika Häkkinen to come and play too. Hell, scrap the rest of the idea, I just want this to happen!

Animal F1 (Or How I Learned to Stop Moaning and love the Nose)

After 4 days of testing in Jerez, we've now seen the majority of the 2012 cars, and at least one of our pre-season questions has now been answered. Yes, indeed the bulk of this years cars look much as we feared, developing the kind of looks only a mother could love.

As was predicted by those in the technical know all but one of the 2012 cars has developed a rough hump (quiet at the back!) at the top of the nose after a regulation change to minimise the risk of the high noses of previous years leading to airborne crashes or to the nose intruding into the cockpit area. The great blogs by ScarbsF1 and Badger GP explain to the reasons why the step in the nose appears (essentially equal parts Safety Regulation + Team Intransigence = Ugly F1!).

There have been rumblings about the effect the ugly cars will have on F1, most notably from Paul Hembery of Pirelli, who has expressed concern that the new designs may put people off tuning in to watch the races. I respect Paul's opinion, and he seems to be pretty spot on with a lot of his views on F1, but I'm not sure I agree on this one. I don't think non-F1 advocates or casual fans will particularly even notice the change in the cars, much less be made less likely to be converted by the wonky-noses. Its generally only the more hardcore of us that really have any firm opinion on what a beautiful F1 car looks like. And conventional wisdom says the last truly good looking F1 cars are from the mid-90s, and F1 has attracted a decent mix of hardcore and casual fans since then! The people who may be put off are us hardcore fans, but what we really care about is the quality of the racing. If the new cars put on a good show this year, we'll be in no danger of changing channels.

None of which should suggest I actually like the new cars. I don't. They look wrong. I think that because the change has come from a safety perspective (combined with the teams feeling unable to reduce the area around the front suspension) it makes an intrusive dent in the 'natural' flow of the design. The same issue made the look of the 1996 cars look odd too, with safety changes leaving the cockpit sides looking like they featured pre-deployed airbags. Eventually however, a better solution was found and the padding bedded into the designs more. Let's hope after seeing the 2012 cars the FIA and the teams can sit down and find a more elegant solution for future years! Not for the casual fan though, but for me - they are goning to hurt my eyes at 6am for the early race starts!

Some of the cars with wonky-nose-syndrome look better than others. Red Bull have at least had the grace to make theirs a vent so it looks like it was supposed to be there. I was glad to read in Mark Hughes' Autosport column that I'm not the only one cynical about Adrian Newey's assertion the vent is just for driver cooling! On the Lotus the nose-wobble gives the JPS-style gold stripes an extra few curves to look gorgeous on, which is never an entirely bad thing.

The car that really does look like it was beaten with an ugly stick is, sadly, the new Ferrari. But for me the worst part is that gaping mouth at the front of it, making it look like a Basking Shark sweeping the race track for Plankton. Maybe it's after some of those bugs from the Silverstone race last year. Can you fuel a car on bugs?!

All the talk of ugly cars this year has lead to some other inevitable comparisons to other ugly F1 cars. Some of these I agree with, but for some I think its a bit harsh. Beuty is in the eye of the beholder after all! You can have a look at some sets at these links and see which you think are ugly sisters, and which you have a secret crush on!
- Badger F1 Top 5 Ugly F1 - Personally I love Damon's '92 Brabham!
- Axis of Oversteer Flickr Gallery - the Eiffelland car gets my nod here, just for that wing mirror!
- Bleacher report Gallery - plenty to argue over here!

I do have to give a shout in favour of one car that always gets dragged up in discussions of ugly f1 cars - the Williams FW26. It seems most people hated this car, and I've always felt a lone voice in favour of the design, which I thought looked aggressive and purposeful. The results just didn't come for the FW23 until they switched the 'Walrus' nose for a more conventional and bland layout, which annoyingly went on to win a Grand Prix, meaning the detractors were proved right. I hate it when that happens!

Anyway, it gives me another excuse for an F1 / animal lookalike to add to the Platypus and Shark above. If anyone else has any other animal impersonators they want to share either add them to the comments or tweet them to @chrispageng and I'll share them, around! Cars or drivers, but don't be too mean folks!

Picture credits for the images above:
- Platypus
- Ferrari 2012
- Basking Shark
- Williams FW26
- Walrus

Highway to Hell?

In Autumn 2011 the BBC ran a short series looking at threats to the country's National Parks. One of these looked at the conflicts caused by off-road vehicle users driving on 'green lanes' for recreational driving. It's no longer available on iPlayer, but the programme's web page is still up, with some information and clips.

Green Laning involves navigating roads which are know as 'Byways Open to All Traffic' (BOAT). These are usually unpaved roads, looking more like a Bridleway or even a footpath, but which are legally open to all road users. Getting a 4x4 or trial bike down these can be a challenge, which makes Green Laning a popular activity for owners of off-road cars and bikes. Fairly predictably however not everyone loves the idea of cars navigating these lanes, with campaigners saying the practise damages the environment and endangers the safety of other users of the lanes.

The issue first came to my notice when it was featured on Countryfile (OK, so Sunday night telly isn't just about Top Gear for me, live with it!), which featured a pretty one-sided debate weighing down heavily on the side of Green Laning's detractors. The National Parks programme, based in my beloved Peak District, was much more even handed - but no side came out of it smelling like roses. Like the stuff you use to help your roses grow perhaps! The anti-Green Laners were a bunch of classic Middle England NIMBYs, determined to stop the use of the lanes for any activity not endorsed by their good selves (picking berries to make sloe gin = good; anything with an engine = bad). The Green Laners started out trying to engage, but after getting the full force of people's angry they instead fell back to resting on the legality of their hobby. Relying on what are fairly antiquated laws that were never intended to allow Land Rovers on country lanes just didn't seem like a particularly safe strategy. In fairness to the National Park Authority they were stuck in the middle doing what seemed a good job of dispassionately taking each reported issue on a case-by-case basis and trying to find solutions. This inevitably led to both sides deriding the authority as ineffectual and biased to the opposite camp.

What bothered me most about the programme though was the desire among Green Laning's opponents to see it stamped out in its entirity. The Peak District Green Lanes Alliance (PDGLA) campaign group seems, for example, to indicate that it accepts a blanket ban isn't possible - but it lists its primary aim as being to, 'campaign for the exclusion of mechanically propelled vehicles, driven or ridden for pleasure (‘offroading’), from the green lanes of, primarily, the Peak District.'

Now, I may write this blog as a motorsport fan, but that isn't where my interests end. I walk most weekends, especially in the Peak District. If you met me on a walk you'd think I'm very much the stereotypical rambler - big boots, map case, flask of tea, bobble hat, vaguely-lost-but-refusing-to-admit-it, that kinda thing. Last year alone I spent many fine weekends walking in the Peaks, from Matlock in the south up to Castleton and Edale. I've been known to mountain bike too - but this really is too much like hard work for me, so I stick to the walking. So I'm certainly not simply a petrol-head demanding the natural environment be turned into a vehicular-playground. I'd lose as much from that as anyone. In all my walks however I have only come across Green Laners once. It was a group of trial bikers, on a lane at Dirtlow Rake near Castleton. I wouldn't say the group went out of their way to doth their helmets to us - but they certainly didn't cause my group of walkers any more hassle than a group of mountain bikers or horse-riders would have.

In many countries National Parks are almost pristine and untouched landscapes, sheltered from human contact and often greatly restricted. In the UK our parks are a more human environment, with towns and villages, and a much wider recreational use. They have huge natural beauty sure - but people are also a key part of their charm. We also dedicate more of our land to our parks than the vast majority of other European countries - not bad for a 'crowded' little island. Visitors are encouraged and the environments are there to be enjoyed by us all. And that's where the campaigns against Green Laning are, in my opinion, at their most dangerous. If one group of users is banned from accessing National Parks (or any environment) a precedent is set that can then be used against others too.


Erosion is a concern in all popular recreational environments - walkers and cyclists cause huge erosion to the Peak District (see this photo of Peak District erosion too). Who is to say these groups won't be the next to get restricted? On the recently reopened sections of the Monsal Trail there have been complaints about cyclists riding without consideration for other users. Again, if one user group is banned, who is to say more can't be in the long term? I'd be surprised if many farmers and landowners aren't keeping an eye on this issue too. If 4x4s can be banned for causing erosion, why not walkers for damaging crops and fields or threatening livestock? We are living in times when our ability to access the countryside for our leisure is being extended ever more, with Open Access areas, new footpaths and better facilities for all groups. We should be celebrating this and finding ways we can work together to ensure this trend continues for many years to come.

All the above may sound like a monologue against those who don't like Green Laning. It isn't intended to be. The groups involved do have many valid concerns which deserve to be heard. My issue isn't with the fact that different groups have concerns, but only that the way to rectify these concerns is to involve the Green Laning community rather than seek to ban it. I hope the Green Laning community does find ways to engage with such groups to find ways of working together where possible.

This spur to write this blog came from a link I spotted to a consultation currently being run by Derbyshire County Council (which covers most of the Peak District), which is gathering feedback on their new Policy for the Management of Motorised Vehicle use in the Countryside. To my eye this looks like a good effort at balancing the use of the countryside for all the different groups that wish to have access, with reasonable provisions for monitoring different routes to assess damage being caused. The coucil has a survey which is available for anyone to complete to give their views on the proposed policy. I would encourage anyone with an interest in this problem to fill it in (it takes 5 minutes at most) and help contribute to a lasting solution.

Eastwood Stages, Mallory Park

The BMMC held their annual marshal training days at Donington Park last weekend, Iand since attending I've been looking forward to getting back out on the banks again this year. I only did two events last year, but caught the bug, and getting the orange overalls out on Sunday got me in the mood for the year to come. This despite me busting the zip open on them trying to squeeze my carcass in after lunch!

It's a while until the circuit racing season starts, but this weekend I'll be marshaling on my first rally, the Eastwood Stages at Mallory Park. I've been to the rallies in Sherwood Forest a few times but never to a single venue rally, so I'm quite excited about getting down there and getting involved. Thankfully rally marshaling doesn't need the orange overalls either so I have some time to get the zip fixed (my pride will take longer to heal)! With this being a single-venue rally, there should also be more chances to be involved on the stages - without dragging myself across half of England to keep up!

The event has over 40 cars confirmed, including classic Escorts (it wouldn't be a rally without classic Escorts), Evos, Imprezas, and an RS2000. But most exciting for me is the Metro 6R4 taking part, which is the hot favorite to take the victory. I've seen static 6R4s at displays before, but never seen one of the snarling little beasts in action before, relying on You Tube video like the one here.

Who could possibly pass up the chance to see one of these tearing up the tarmac?!

The Eastwood Stages is open to punters, with the first car off at 9.30. Its only £5 per car entry - so fill a car up and its only a quid each. You really can't say fairer than that! If you've never been to Mallory Park I can wholeheartedly recommend it. The place is the very definition of small but perfectly formed, with a great view of a large proportion of the track from most of the banks. The cafe is open and the paddock is free to access.

A little bit of Track Action!

Last year when buying a new car I wanted to buy something that allowed me to have just a bit of fun in it. It also needed to be reasonably sensible on a size and practicality front too. So, I ended up with a 2001 Vauxhall Astra 1.8. I've loved driving it since. It is hardly a 'fast' car, but is quick enough to have a wee bit of fun in. One thing I wanted was a car I could do a track day in without it being too embarrassingly slow.

I've never been on a track day before, and the thought of doing a full day was quite scary. What if I cooked my brakes? What if I stacked it? What if I was a mobile road block and hated it? However, I saw an advert on the Rockingham website for a 'track taster session'. This is basically a half hour on track while everyone on the full day is having a lunch break. It was £30, and so I thought I'd have a crack.

The session was on Saturday, and I was full of trepidation - especially when the road conditions on the M1 made me think I'd taken a wrong turn into a car wash! When I got to Rockingham we had some time on the race simulators before getting a briefing and getting out on track. I was pretty nervous, especially when learning we were on the ISSC circuit which includes Turn 1 of the Rockingham Oval. Sitting in the pit lane before going out the banking loomed up at me - it looked a damn sight more intimidating than it did when I've spectated and marshaled at Rockingham! The guys running the session were friendly however, and gave a thorough briefing, explaining the track and conditions and so, after 3 laps behind a pace car, we were let loose on the circuit.

I'd let the other three cars go ahead of me, still worried was I that I'd just be a mobile chicane to everyone. But I needn't have worried so much. It was pretty nerve-racking at first being on a proper track (especially that banking!), but pretty soon I started to feel more confident and enjoyed feeling the car moving about underneath me instead of feeling threatened by it. I was keeping up with the Porsche in front, which was pretty pleasing. The poor Astra didn't have the grunt in a straight line to really catch up to pass though! Just as well really considering I'd started enjoying it so much that I put the car into a lazy half spin in the Pif Paf corner. The guys from the circuit had told us Rockingham is like ice when damp, and they weren't wrong. I struggled for traction in all the corners, although Pif Paf was the one corner they said we wouldn't struggle on. It's typical of me to then spin the car in it!

The point really of this story though is that soon the value of a shorter (and lower cost) session really came home to me. Shortly after the spin, about 15/20 minutes into our 30 minutes of track time (which included the paced laps) a warning light came on in the car. With only 10 minutes left I didn't really car to stop and come in. I did slow down a little though, not pushing quite as much. If that had happened on a full track day, I think it would have freaked me enough to do very limited running. This is especially true when I rely on the car for getting to work and other things too (the sensible part of my purchasing decision). As it was, I was able to enjoy my session, tested myself on a slippy track, and didn't have to worry about wasting my money for only part of a day - or worry about breaking my car!

All in all, I thought the 'taster' day was great fun, and good value for money. I just wish more circuits did shorter sessions like this. The only other place I've really seen it is at the PPC Magazine 'In the Park' event at Mallory Park, where you can book 15 minute track slots for £20. You have to pay entry to the event too (£15), but its a good day out, where you can enjoy the track displays, the off-track action and have a bit of a blast getting your car out on a racing, without worrying about needing new brakes and tyres (or worse!) afterwards and only £35 lighter (well, £45 if you do the Autotest too, which you really should!). I'll definitely be trying to get along to Mallory Park for PPC's event and getting myself out on track again now I've got a bit of a taste for it! No doubt I'll get along to do another half-hour at Rockingham too. I just wish more circuits offered similar ways of getting on circuit without making it a £100 plus 'all or nothing' choice! I can't think, for example, of a better day out than half an hour out on track at Donington Park followed by lunch and a trip round the museum. Hint hint!

(The light, by the way, went off of its own accord after I stopped for a sandwich on the way home. I think the poor thing just wasn't used to being chucked around!)

Still no nearer a decision!

A couple of days ago BBC announced their new line up for the F1 coverage in 2012, and while there were few surprises in there it is a strong team. I like Ben Edwards a great deal. He has a broad knowledge of motorsport, including F1, and has a strong reputation in the sport. I don't think he'll miss many tricks, and I can see him gelling pretty well with DC too. I love Eddie Jordan (mentioning my love of Jordan GP and therefore Eddie will probably be a recurring theme in my posts!). He speaks his mind, and, while not always on the mark he always entertains. He's definitely good value to have on the box. And then there is James Allen on the radio coverage. James still comes in for a lot of criticism for his commentary. He had the thankless job of replacing Murray Walker, and for the first couple of seasons went too far down the line of trying to replicate him, with forced over-excitement at the starts especially . But I grew to really enjoy James and Martin Brundle together and am glad we'll get a chance to hear him again. Maybe after the time away people will be able to give him a fair hearing. recieved

Despite the BBC having a good team however, I expected the fact that Sky had all the races live and a commentary dream-team in David Croft and Brundle to make it an easy choice to fling a few fivers a month in their direction. I'm finding it a harder choice to make though at the moment.

I don't mind paying extra for my F1 coverage. I'm not happy about it, and I'm still not sure its right for the sport. But at the end of the day I love F1 and, like fans of other sports, it seems I have to accept a charge to see the whole lot live. However, the ongoing indecision about having the coverage on Virgin is really disheartening, and not a great sign about how the two companies may work together. They have past history of stupid decisions, punishing their collective viewers, so I'm really not putting it past them doing it again. And I really can't leave Virgin. My house is so far from Skys' transmitter (or whatever the tecnical-mabob is!) that their sales have told me the best broadband I'll get is 1mb. 1mb! I get over 10mb on Virgin on a cheap package! So I'd have to split my services, having Sky for the telly and Virgin for the web. That adds even more cost as you lose the package deal - and I'm not sure I'm prepared to put up with that extra cost.

Secondly, I feel Sky are missing a real trick if they fail to include more motorsport than F1 - and all the signs are so far they may do just that. They could move their Indycar coverage to the F1 channel, bring in GP2 and GP3 (which rumour would have you believe is virtually free once you have F1), and you have a top quality motorsport channel starting to develop. The addition of a wider variety of motorsport really would be a key factor in deciding whether to sign up.

Then, if you add in the fact the Beeb have a quality team lined up for the coverage they do have, and maybe I should give the extended highlights a go and spend the money I save on an evening's karting every month?

What does everyone else think they will do?

Donington Collection Visit #MGPdonny

For the past few months I've been 'intending' to start this blog. As with much in life however I've been struggling to find the effort required to move from 'intending' to 'doing'. But the events of the last weekend have inspired me to jump in and have a crack and see where it goes - as often doing things you intend to do but haven't yet done can be a rewarding experience!

As I live only 30 short minutes away from Donington Park, I've always 'intended ' (that word again) to visit the Donington Collection of Grand Prix cars, but somehow I've never quite gotten round to it. But on Friday night, at literally the 11th hour, I noticed vague posts on Twitter where people I follow were telling others to 'enjoy their day at the Donny Collection'. Hating missing out I made quick enquiries as to what was going on and found out another blogger (Garry Marshall at MarshalGP) had organised a trip to the collection, with a track walk too with a £2 saving on the ticket price too! So I shoe-horned my way into the event and headed to Donington on Saturday morning.

As soon as we were in the museum, I realised what a fool I'd been not making the effort before. It's like stumbling into the worlds best garage, with rows and rows of classic Grand Prix machinery lined up - and each a cracker! Most era's of Grand Prix history are represented, from the flaming-spitting brutes of the pre-war years right through to the intricately designed cars of 2008 (I didn't see any cars from the years after the reg changes 'smoothing' out the cars and adding big front wings). Many people say they don't like the cars from the mid-00s due to having too many flutes and funnels and attachments. I must admit though I love seeing them, and the intricate details they employ to shepard the air to the right places. I can't say I like them more than the cars from other eras, but I certainly don't like them less, so it was great to see the 2007 McLaren and the 2008 Red Bull.

I've always loved the old footage of Donington from the 1930s (see the You Tube Video above!), so it was a particular pleasure to see one of the famous Auto Unions, looking as gorgeous in the metal as it does in the newsreels (pic below!). Then there was the Cosworth 4 Wheel Drive test car from 1969 - so completely alien to the designs of any era that it looks like a prop from a Batman movie rather than a car that was ever intended to race in the World Championship (pic opposite)!

The F1 Twitterer @GrandPrixDiary recently had a shout out for recollections of ugly F1 nose designs, and plenty of the nominees were present and correct at the collection, inlcluding the Cosworth, the 1995 McLaren and the 'tea-tray' March 721. I must admit to having a fondness for the out-there design of the March and the Cosworth - but not so much the Macca, but then I don't think its even anyone at McLaren's favorite McLaren!

The absolute highlights for me however were all grouped within a few meters of each other in the Williams hall. First to mention were two of Damon Hill's car - the Brabham he just qualified for his first F1 start (Silverstone 1992) and, just opposite, the Williams I watched Damon race in the 1993 Donington Grand Prix when I was 12 years old. Senna's race winning car was sadly away at the Autosport show, but such was the sheer weight of cars on show I didn't miss it.

I started watching F1 as an 11 year old in 1991 and my first memory of the sport was seeing a Jordan 191 being lapped by two battling cars at the French GP, with all three side by side. The image seared itself (no doubt not entirely accurately) into my impressionable brain and a sporting obsession was born! I supported Jordan until they left the sport, and it was truly moving to see the car up close.As much as I supported Jordan as a team, Mansell really was my man - and I'll still fight any man who suggests he isn't a true Grand Prix legend! In only my 2nd year of watching Grand Prix Mansell took his title in the FW14b. So seeing these two cars together, within feet of each other really did leave me star-struck. I had to watch myself on the day for fear of sounding like a teenage fan at a Westlife concert (or whatever it is teenage fans get giddy about these days!).

If there is any criticism of the Donington Collection, it is that for the most part it is just that - a collection of cars. The changing designs and liveries are explained on the supporting information, but it would be good to see more groupings of cars to really show the evolution (you get quite a good effect in the McLaren and Williams halls where the cars are lined up) to explain F1's evolution from front-engined to rear-engined cars, through the various aerodynamic trends and regulation changes. A windtunnel model was tucked away between two of the cars - it would be great to see more made of this, in a recreated windtunnel maybe, to show how car design process works. The best example in the museum of how this might work is shown in the display of two of David Purley's LEC cars - one in good condition, and one obliterated by a crash in the 1977 British GP meeting. Its amazing to see the two side-by-side, leaving you marvelling at how anyone could ever survive the accident. It would be fantastic to see more displays that tell a story like this.

I'd personally also like to see more of the history of Donington itself. There are some boards giving some detail - but they are consumed by the ever encroaching collection, making them hard to give any attention. I suppose I should remember this is a Grand Prix Collection though, not the Story of Donington, but some of us are never satisfied! Its hard in any sense to feel any disappointment or criticism when you have the sheer amount of historic cars displayed that they do. I know I'm already planning my next visit when some of the cars are back from the Autosport show, and if you are a motorsport fan it really is essential viewing.

The Collection's most poignant exhibit brings together cars and items that belonged to Roger Williamson, who was tragically killed in the 1973 Dutch Grand Prix. David Purley (the amazing crash escapee from described above) earned the George Medal for his heroic efforts in trying to save Williamson. The scene is featured on the recent documentary Grand Prix: The Killer Years and is one of the saddest sights I've seen from F1's often dark history. Tom Wheatcroft, the engineer of Donington's 1970's rebirth, and enigmatic founder of the Collection, funded Williamson's career, and you can feel the personal sadness in the displays. There is a statue outside (right), which at first glance looks hidden away, dwarfed by the memorial to Senna and Fangio, but on discovering it is Williamson, and knowing the story, its more secluded site seems entirely appropriate and moving.

Thanks need to be passed on again to Gary Marshall for organising the day. There was a great turnout (around 35-40 people), and hopefully there will be plenty more gatherings in the future! There are alreday rumblings to that effect, so I suggest if you aren't already you follow @MarshallGP on Twitter! Its always fun to meet up with other people with a passion for motorsport, and new social-media sites like Twitter are making this ever easier - Viva la Future!

And, the moral of the story again is - don't 'intend' to do things - start 2012 off by doing some of them!

My photos from the day are below - my apologies for being as good with a camera as I am with words! Practice makes perfect...!