Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Silence No More: The Ferrari Incident

I can contain my silence no more; prepare for a well thought out blog post on the issue of Ferrari team orders in the German Grand Prix.

As the whole world seems to know, Ferrari issued coded team orders to race leader Felipe Massa to let Fernando Alonso pass and claim the race victory, leaving Felipe finishing second and outrage within the sport and Ferrari being fined $100,000 and the issue being referred to the World Motor Sport Council (WMSC) for further review.

Whilst that’s the case in a nutshell, the data seems to paint a very different story of the race. At the start of the race, Massa from 3rd on the grid managed to pass both Vettel (who was on pole) and his team mate Alonso (start from 2nd), into the lead. The two Ferrari’s followed each other for much of the opening stint of the race without much of a gap emerging, the first and only pit stops occurred and still the two Ferrari’s remained in formation.

However, Alonso was clearly faster than the race leader and wanted past. A race between the Ferraris’s then ensued for a few laps as Alonso searched for a way past – having failing to do so, he came on the radio to the team declaring “This is ridiculous”. The Ferrari team, no doubt looked at the data and discussed, but decided not to issue any coded messages to their drivers to let Alonso past; in other words, the two drivers were free to race.

Two things then happened; Alonso slowed down and Massa sped up. The BBC commentators speculated that Alonso had been forced into a ‘fuel saving mode’ in order to ensure he had enough reach the end of the race (a standard practice in most F1 teams). Massa was now ahead of Alonso by a clear 5 seconds.

The next phase of the race then unfolded. Alonso started to catch the race leader, reeling him in at a vast rate of knots – indicating that Alonso had completed his fuel saving phase and was clearly faster (a fact backed up by the driver setting a number of fastest laps).

Alonso soon found himself 0.6secs behind the race leader and in the ‘dirty air zone’ of the leading car. Sensing that the time had come, Vettel in third place and quite some time behind both Ferraris then started to chip away at the lead of the two leading cars – this was clear to the Ferrari team and anyone else following along with the lap time data.

Massa had not yet gone through his ‘fuel saving phase’ and if he had to go through this stage he would have held Alonso up even further. Ferrari, desperate for a result, couldn’t risk it and the team (Rob Smedley, Massa’s race engineer), clearly sent a coded message to Massa; “Fernando is faster than you”. A lap later and with 19 laps of the race remaining, Massa let Alonso pass him. Rob back on the radio said to Massa, “Good lad, stick with him. Sorry”.

The final phase of the race then unfolded; Alonso went on to set fastest lap after fastest lap until the end of the race, where Massa suddenly slowed significantly - his fuel saving phase (?), which put him 5 seconds behind Alonso at the end of the race (the same amount of time Alonso had lost and regained during his fuel saving).

The discussion after the race was whether Ferrari had issued team orders that changed the outcome of the race. Ferrari denied “team orders” were given, for everyone else it was a clear cut instruction or ‘coded message’ – a system that has been used by every team in the pit lane since the introduction of the “no team orders” rule issued in 2003 (the Internet forums are littered with prime examples of this from McLaren and Red Bull and others).

Why did Ferrari feel the need to issue a coded message at all? The answer is found at the end of the race. Massa finished 5 seconds behind Alonso, which accounts for his fuel saving phase but Vettel eventually finished 0.9 behind Massa, demonstrating that the Red Bull car towards the end of the race had some decent pace. Now, just for a moment, lets speculate that Massa hadn’t let Alonso past holding him up 0.6secs behind him and assuming that Massa still had to go through his fuel saving phase or didn’t have any more pace to pull away from Alonso (which I think is a fair assumption, given that Alonso set fastest lap after fastest lap at the end of the race). This would have meant Vettel would have been 0.3secs behind Alonso if he hadn’t managed to pass the lead Ferrari.

0.3 seconds would have given Vettel a decent shot at an overtaking opportunity to pass Alonso whilst he was held up by Massa. If Vettel had passed Alonso in this scenario, he would have then been 0.6secs behind Massa – again prime overtaking opportunity. I think it’s also a fair assumption that Vettel would have been more aggressive at trying an overtake than Alonso racing his team mate (think two Red Bull cars coming together in Turkey).

Now there are a lot of ifs, buts, could haves in that scenario and anything could have happened, however Ferrari like every other team have full knowledge of their strategy (their fuel saving needs), and they also have data from their simulations on how soon Vettel would have been able to have caught their two cars and attempted an overtake.

Put yourself in the position of Stefano Domenicali, Ferrari Team Principal, for a moment and that scenario has been laid out in front of you; as team principal, would you have guaranteed your team’s 1-2 finish or would you have gambled that Vettel wouldn’t have caught and potentially passed the guy in second who is clearly faster than the leader? Also bearing in mind the points is equal to prize money and after not achieving the results the Tifosi and media are growing impatient? I know that I would have done everything to guarantee the best result for the team and I’m sure you would have too.

Three people were very outspoken after the race of Ferrari’s use of ‘coded messages’ or ‘team orders’; those were Christian Horner (Team Principal of Red Bull), Eddie Jordan (former Team Owner of Jordan Grand Prix), and Martin Whitmarsh (Team Principal of McLaren).

Lets quickly review; Martin Whitmarsh/McLaren at the Turkish Grand Prix issued orders to Jenson Button to refrain from racing race leader Lewis Hamilton and to go into “fuel saving mode”, after Jenson had attempted to overtake Hamilton – ‘coded team order messages’ or genuine? Speculation and discussion about the incident was certainly present at the next grand prix.

Eddie Jordan famously issued team orders to Ralf Schumacher - running in second place behind team mate and race leader Damon Hill, at the Belgian GP in 1998 - informing him not to attempt to overtake the leader; clear team orders. Jordan’s stance on the BBC F1 Forum was that he made that decision before the “no team orders” rule was introduced into Formula 1 and that no big deal should be made of it. Poppy-cock! He made the decision and issued the order to ensure that the result was the best result for his team.

Finally Christian Horner, the most outspoken and the man who has the most to gain by Ferrari being excluded from the results (Vettel promoted to race winner). However, this is the man who last week ordered his team to remove a new front wing from Mark Webber’s car and gave it to Vettel. It may not have been ‘on track’ team orders but it was team orders all the same and it certainly favoured one driver over another.

Could the whole thing have been avoided by Ferrari? Yes, if Massa hadn’t moved over so dramatically/obviously perhaps the fans could have accepted it a bit more, however Felipe wanted to make a point that the ‘coded message’ had been sent to him and that he was a team player for Ferrari. Would it have really mattered how Massa let Alonso past? No, of course not – the team had issued the order after giving him a chance to make the race victory his earlier in the race, he either didn’t/couldn’t make it his by pulling out a big enough gap to Alonso or Alonso was just too quick for him on this particular day; Fernando would have passed regardless.

How will the FIA respond? The FIA are undoubtedly in a very difficult position here, especially with former Ferrari Team Principal Jean Todt at the helm. Todt famously issued the team order for Rubens Barrichello to move over and let Michael Schumacher pass him at the Austrian GP in 2002, the incident that prompted the “No team orders” rule to start with.

If the FIA rule in favour of Ferrari, there will undoubtedly be accusations of favouritism towards Ferrari and if they rule against, it may compromise Todt’s decision in 2002 to issue similar team orders and a series of other ‘coded messages’ that are on-record from previous races by all other teams may need to be full examined and acted upon in accordance with this ruling (Ferrari would undoubtedly call for this action in this case). Either way it puts the FIA and its President in a precarious position. The way out would be for the WMSC to cancel the meeting with Ferrari and either scrap or re-word the team order rule as quickly as possible.

Final thoughts: Team orders in one way or another have been in Formula 1 since the very beginning and have been present even after the “no team orders” rule was brought into the sport in 2003. The fans may not always like it, but this sport is also a business with some big financial incentives to win and do well. The sport is also a team sport, if it wasn’t then each team would only be allowed to race a single car. Every team in the pit lane had issued some sort of orders either during the race or prior to the race starting, using pre-race agreements or pre-agreed coded messages (some of these may or may not be as clear as Ferrari’s “Fernando is faster than you, please confirm you understand this message?” statement, but they do exist).

Team orders can’t be removed from the sport because they can’t be policed. It’s the FIA’s word against the teams and it matters not what context the words were spoken, context can be deciphered in many ways, unless fully admitted to (Ferrari were never going to admit to breaking the rules regardless of whether the ‘coded message’ was a team order or not).

If I were Ferrari Team Principal, I’d have made the exact same call and handled the situation in exactly the same way. Anyone who says they would have handled it differently isn’t thinking about it from the perspective of the team and securing the best possible result for that team. It matters not that it was Ferrari, the FIA/media/fans could have made this much fuss over team orders and coded messages for just about any team.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Plinky-Plonk

For me blogging has always been an opportunity to complain about anything and everything in more than 140 characters, and I don’t see why anyone would set up a blog for anything other than that purpose – unless they were promoting a particular event, or reporting a certain genre of news, or……ok, so there are lots of reasons to blog, but let me focus on my target here.

 

I’ve recently been alerted to a site known as “Plinky”, which is basically a Q&A for bloggers who have no imagination of their own to scribble down some clever answers in response to an ill thought out question.

 

Its actually a pretty good idea – a new question every day and inspiration without having to actually do any real thinking - its not for me! I think I already have my complaining genre pretty much sewn up, so I wasn’t about to sign up for the site.

 

Then I discovered Plinky also has a Twitter page where they post the exact same questions; so without further ado, I’ve picked out my top five questions from the first page and will attempt to answer them to the best of my abilities:

 

Describe something you lost that you want back

 

My dignity.

 

If you had unlimited resources what would you create?

 

I wouldn’t – I’d let some other poor sap concentrate on creating something whilst I lived it up on a beach without a care in the world with my unlimited amount of resources.

 

Mild, medium or hot?

 

A question straight from the Nando’s Employee guide; its medium by the way.

 

Tell about a time you wish you had been more selfish.

 

Well, between the time I was born and present day, selfishness has been ever present.  I won’t go into further details.

 

What part of life confuses you the most?

 

Its all confusing, that’s the point.  If it were easy, there would also be no point.  Thought the most confusing thing right now is why anyone would sign up for Plinky when they could simply steal their questions, set up their own blog page and plaster it with Google-Ads to make a bit of money on the side – perhaps that’s what I should created with my unlimited resources?

 

Excuse me whilst I go ponder this further.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Manhunt!

It started 7 days ago – but much like the series of the same name, its only been the last “24” hours that have really mattered as far as I’ve been concerned.

You see seven days ago Raoul Moat (a vowel filled name to say the least), apparently shot and killed his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend (who he thought was a police officer or to use a very British term “copper”), and started via a series of letters a rampage against the police force promising to kill a few more coppers before being caught. The police declared him “Most Wanted Man” and a huge manhunt started to find him before he struck again. Another ordinary news story from the UK thus far.

Up until yesterday, I’d just about avoided this story and was blissfully unaware of the details (I’m still not in all honesty). Other than someone was being hunted down, the snippets of news I’d managed to catch of the ‘real world’ the story hadn’t interested me enough to fully grab my attention.

But that all changed yesterday evening – because in the sleepy little village of Rothbury, all camera and news crews descended after hearing that Raoul had been spotted and cornered by the Police and negotiations for his surrender were underway. My TV tuned to Sky News at around 8pm and it stayed there until 2am the next day, I was gripped to the story and gripped to the accompanying tweets that commented and made jokes about the entire media operation.

It may all sound rather exciting, but the twists and turns were not over by a long shot. Sky brought us the news that his best friend had been brought in to talk him down (an exciting development), locals who were trapped in their homes were called and gave accounts of how they knew absolutely nothing about the situation and then – and then – former England Footballer Paul ‘Gazza’ Gascoigne had called the local radio station stating that only he could talk Raoul down and get him to surrender safely.

It was a story that had everything – and I was gripped! I wanted news cameras everywhere, I wanted to see Gazza confronting the criminal, I wanted police to be involved in a shoot out –- I wanted the whole thing to be turned into a blockbuster film!

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you see it), the master criminal keep us all up half the night only to then reportedly shoot himself ending the story in a predictable fashion.

My point in this blog post is not the story of Mr Moat’s demise, but the evolution of the news channel. No longer is it sufficient to report the story and move on to the next but the format has changed to provide full rolling coverage of the entire event – and its a change that has only happened in the UK in the past year or so; Michael Jackson’s death, followed by the full aftermath of that event right to the very end and perhaps beyond, the UK elections, ‘bigot-gate’, Cameron (not James), taking the PM job (never before have we the public seen the entire handing over of power if minute-by-minute detail on live TV), and now ‘Moat-gate’ or ‘Raoul-gate’ or whatever it shall be known as.

The only event before all of these that got so much minute-by-minute coverage was the death of Princess Diana in 1997 – but those were exceptional circumstances where Royalty (and perhaps more import ‘the people’s Princess’) had died in mysterious circumstances and the UK watched this historical event unfold right there on the TV screens.

All of these events featured exactly the same elements; camera crews everywhere even in places they shouldn’t have been, eye witness reports, opinions of those that don’t have an actual opinion and the ‘24’ split screen – the only thing missing is the clock and of course Jack Bauer.

….though we did get Gazza instead.

It Started With A Tweet

Anyone who reads this blog undoubtedly follows me on Twitter and if you don’t follow me on Twitter, I only have one thing to say to you – “why ever not?”

For those who don’t follow me, to the right is my stream for your reading pleasure and a handy button to come follow me in real time. But enough with the shameless self promotion, let me get to my point.

I’ve always known that Twitter is a powerful tool, I’ve read the books, visited the websites, been to the seminars and realised it for myself, its a tool that connects vast amounts of people 140 characters at a time and has a reach into so many of our daily lives. Its a powerful tool – and that message was re-enforced to me just this week.

Anyone outside of the US has probably been wondering just who Lebron James is and why he’s been a trending topic for the past couple of weeks. Well, from what I gather he’s a top Basketball player who decided to announce which team he would play for next (Miami was the result). This caused a mass amount of traffic on Twitter with everyone getting swept up in the story. On Monday, the official Twitter account – @Twitter – finally verifed that @KingJames was thee account for Lebron James and welcomed him onto the site – his followers increased in no time as everyone clamoured to find out the latest news and pending announcement.

My ego, being what is it, instantly spotted that 'when I signed up to Twitter, I’d not been given the same warm welcome and decided that I would make an off-the-cuff tweet back to the @Twitter account asking why I hadn’t been welcomed in the same way – after all I’m just as an important and equal user as @KingJames right?

My tweet went out as thus:


@twitter I never got a welcome like that when I joined @twitter - I somehow feel de-vauled! :(
I hit “Send” on TweetDeck and never thought anything more of it and went back to reading TechCrunch or writing email or whatever I was doing at the time. TweetDeck continuing to run in the background, I noticed a lot of messages were appearing but from no one I recongised and I decided to ignore them as TweetDeck bleeped away alerting me to these messages.

It was then I realised that the bleeps were getting closer together and messsage popping up more frequently and also found my mobile phone vibrating wildly as new email arrived on the device. I clicked TweetDeck to the front and to my surprise a barrage of tweets all addressed to me appeared in my stream! Scrolling down to the beginning it was then I realised that @Twitter had replied to my message and highlighted my account to the world – the replies and retweets appearing in my stream were from all those that had seen that tweet and joined in the buzz.
Oh, and also a much belated welcome to @craigbutters -- see: http://bit.ly/9yn30F.

(Link for status is here)

I picked up my phone – 22 new emails in the past 15 minutes! Opening the mail application, all of them new followers joining my stream. By the time I switched off the laptop a couple of hours later I’d got 86 new followers!

But it was the @ replies that appeared in my stream that most amused me; it seemed like everyone wanted to know who @craigbutters was – some speculated that I too was some famous obscure pop-cult character that they hadn’t heard of yet, others realised straight away that my message had just been selected for reply by @Twitter out of the undoubtely millions they receive every day – but it was a total “15 minutes of fame” moment.

A moment that also saw my page crash -- talk about a true celebrity moment, I'd like to think my page generated quite a few hits that night and caused problems:


It was this one tweet that has reminded me just how powerful the Twitter platform is – one tweet from the right person can change lives, situations, gather support, oppose or promote ideas and change the opinion of everyone.

My message to you is never under estimate your tweet, no matter how minor you think your 140 character message may be, there’s always someone reading – and then just about anything can and will happen.




Monday, July 5, 2010

Sarcasm

Sarcasm (n.)- the ability to insult idiots without them realizing it

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Lesson Learnt – Gifts Are Worthless?

Tonight I’m angry – and I know the rules, if your angry, you should never use the Internet to vent your frustrations, as you’ll probably feel different about it come the morning and regret what you wrote and released into the wild for all to see.

But tonight I’m breaking the rules because tonight the person who has angered me has broken the rules too and I think its only fair to do so.

The person in question is my ex-girlfriend, Katie Little – aka @mngurl1183 on the old Twitter. See, when we were together I bought her a HP Printer – and alright I didn’t spend a lot of money on a top of the range model, it was still pretty decent. The perfect little printer for the student, with a built in scanner and cheap ink cartridges, etc, etc. A lot of thought and research went into it, before selecting 'the one'.

Now, after being together for a few months, we sadly grew apart – guess we were always just different people – and we parted amicably and agreed to be friends.

Tonight I saw on Twitter a message posted by @mngurl1183 which reads as follows:

To my #Leeds and #York Tweeps: Interested in a #HP #printer? I'm selling one. Plz Dm me.


Now, I realise that the printer is having to go because she is moving back home to the US and can’t take it with her in her luggage and I understand that. But having paid for said printer, I tweeted back to say that rather than sell my printer, I would like it back.

I don’t own a printer and don’t really have a specific need for a printer, but having one around is always handy and more important to me would have been the scanner function. But NO….apparently I can’t ask for it back as it was given as a gift.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was brought up to know that you don’t sell gifts? Gifts are there to be treasured forever and looked after, someone who cares about you has gone out of their way to buy something for you, full of thought and hopefully practicality.

Not according to @mngurl1183 though! Apparently, even though I paid for the printer I’m not allowed to ask for it back, even though she is openly selling it on Twitter to anyone who will stump up enough cash to buy it from her.

Since we’ve argued over a printer, I’ve now decided that I no longer want the printer. But I hope this post serves as a reminder to myself more than anything, that no matter how nice you can be to another person, in the end its ultimately not worth it and it’ll only make me angry and annoyed.

Lesson learnt! And I hope whomever ends up with *my* printer, they are very happy with it - I wish you well.

Craig Butters © 2010.