Over the last 2 weeks there have been a few aspects of two very different motor racing series - NASCAR and F1 - that makes it look like the two could learn a bit from each other, or at least look at each and feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Safety Cars

One of my favourite rants about F1 is how they appear confused by the safety car. Every other racing series in the world that has their version of safety car, pace car, whatever they call has worked it out how to sort itself out when the situation calls for it. Let me walk you through it at it's most basic level. An event happens - the safety car is scrambled - the pit lane is closed - the safety car picks up the leader - the field bunches up behind the safety car - pit lane opens - people pit - everyone is happy.

This works just fine everywhere - except Formula 1. They are obviously special. For them the idea of the pits closing seems mind boggling. They complain when they have to pit when the pits are closed. They complain when a safety car means that the person who was winning before the SC isn't leading after it. Why? Search me.

I don't know why they don't stick in a few laps more fuel on the tracks that are prone to SC intervention. People will #### on about how the extra weight will slow the cars down, but how much fuel will it actually take? Behind a safety car even massive F1 engines are frugal sippers from the gas cup, and besides the fractions of a second a couple of extra litres of fuel is undoubtedly less of a penalty than a drive through under green. Fans (I have posted an opinion very similar to this on a UK based website) seem to think that the fact that SCs tend to shake up the running order is bad. It's good! It's the only thing that makes the oft interminable durge of F1 worth watching. It would be less of a problem is a racing pass in Formula was as rare as a snowball in hell.

So from 2009 F1 will have a new rule for Safety Cars - when the SC is scrambled a light will come on the driver's steering wheel, with a button he then has to press to acknowledge the fact, before he slows down. The pits will still be open, so any lucky whatsit who happens to be going past the pit entrance when his light comes on can dive in to the pits while other have to do a lap driving at a speed pulled out of the air by the FIA. Moronic.

Tyres

So that's what F1 can learn from NASCAR, but what can NASCAR learn from F1. Tyres.

This NASCAR season, and the last few weeks especially have seen tyres come to the fore of NASCAR discussions, but F1 is not averse to it's own tyre woes - Indy 2005.

But what does this say?

Well, it knocks on the head the idea I've seen around that more than one tyre supplier will solve the problems. F1 had two suppliers in 2005 - Michelin and Bridgestone - and it still went Belly up then. Besides, the Hoosier tyres the ARCA cars ran at Talladega reportedly had problems as well, so perhap it wasn't purely Goodyear's stupidity. Plus in these days of corporate branding and huge contracts the position of the "Official Tyre of NASCAR" is probably too luractive for any company to agree to go halves with another company.

It also shows that more than one tyre company has been frankly idiotic with motor racing. Several writers - being bloggers, am-journos, or people who actaully get paid - seemed to addressing the tyre blowouts of Dega like it was the end of the world. Yes, we can do without them, especially at a place as borderline dangerous as Dega, but the race still went on. Yes after the (F1) Indy debacle it was discussed at length, and yes it still gets raised in conversations and articles, but it was not the end. What F1 did after was sensible in hindsight.

I only hope anything NASCAR does will be similar. 

I love rain. But, I'm not a keen gardener, the owner of an indoor attraction, or even a sadist who enjoys watching other people's fun get spoilt. Well, I'm a little of the thrid one, but that's far more off topic for this than I want to go.....

Nope, I watch Formula 1.

The must hyped pinnacle of motorsport has got to the point where only a visit from the wet stuff, or an incident with a similarly chaotic outcome, can make it worth watching. Too often of late I feel I am watching a Grand Prix out a strange feeling of duty - I like motor racing - therefore I MUST like F1. Too often I'm very conscious that I'm starting to think of other things.

In the last few years I can only think of a handful of races that have actually been entertaining throughout - last year's Canadian GP, this year's Canadian GP, last years Japanese race, and this year's Monaco addition.

But now add to that list Sunday's British GP.

Living in the UK, I'd known it was going to rain at some point during the race for most of the week, so had made a point of making the time to watch it (despite going to sleep at something close to 5am UK time after the NASCAR race). And the Grand Prix didn't disappoint.

From the off it was clear that for one reason or another - weather, track, set-up, driver - this was not going to be a normal race. Any race that sees two different cars spin themselves round at different corners, especially when one of them is a Ferrari, is not going to a be normal race. As the track dried out I began to settle down for the cold feeling of obligation that comes from watching a dry F1 race. Kimi Raikonnen's Ferrari began charging towards the front and a constant string of replays, delivered by our very own host broadcaster, only served to remind us how exciting F1 can be when the cars don't appear to welded to the track.

But then the British summer arrived. Rain. Lots and lots of rain. But not enough to bring out the safety car because it's too wet, or even make the drivers retreat into 'grandmother mode' and lap at about 30mph. Cars that were previously fast - Kimi's Ferrari - went backwards as they found themselves hopelessly out of their depth on the wrong tyres. Massa span again.

As fans receded into the coats and under umbrellas I advanced to the edge of my seat. Cars and drivers that normally go round corners without a thought suddenly actually had to drive a bit. Keeping the tail from sliding out under power while making sure the front wheels turn. Felipe Massa spun (again).

As the rain came down harder and harder drivers that are normally no where to be seen found themselves 10 seconds per lap faster than the normal contenders - caught and passed them without a challenge. A pass, something that in dry F1 is considered an endangered species. To top off an afternoon of the sort of weather that has made British summers famous, our famous wildlife made a few appearences. Once, after Mass span (yet again) and decided to go cross country (I actaully wondered if he might just give up at that point). And once more running straight across the track at the point more famous for running Irish priests that English Hares.

Slowly the rain cleared up. But it's job was done, it had made the Grand Prix interesting, shuffled the order and caused enough incidents to actaully fill about 7 races. Honda's were third, Ferrari's were nowhere to be seen and some Brit was leading. Despite all this Felipe Massa continued to spin, being joined occasionally by Kimi Raikonnen.

I don't care that Lewis Hamilton won. Only that it was actually entertaining. If the British GP is indeed to move from Silverstone in 2010 I don't care, just as long as it rains at Donington as well.  

Formula One

This season may be barely half over and the title race still wide open, but the 2009 calendar for Formula 1 has been announced, well at least provisionally - here it is.

29 March - Australia (Melbourne)
5 April - Malaysia (Sepang)
19 April - Bahrain (Manama)
10 May - Spain (Barcelona)
24 May - Monaco
7 June - Canada (Montreal)
21 June - Britain (Silverstone)
28 June - France (Magny-Cours)
12 July - Germany (Nuerburgring)
26 July - Hungary (Budapest)
9 August - Turkey (Istanbul)
23 August - Europe (Valencia)
6 September - Italy (Monza)
13 September - Belgium (Spa-Francorchamps)
27 September - Singapore
11 October - Japan (Suzuka)
18 October - China (Shanghai)
1 November - Brazil (Interlagos)
15 November - Abu Dhabi

Every peice I've read has gone with the finale at a new Abu Dhabi track as the main angle. This is just another example of Bernie Ecclestone, the poisoned dwarf who runs the commercial side of F1, going where the money is, at the expense of tradition and fans. NASCAR has the demise of tracks like Rockingham in favour of unloved dates in places like Fontana, in the future I fear F1 fans will talk of a calendar packed with dates in the Middle and Far East with only a bare minimum of races in Europe, the main historical F1 fan base and the locations of all the current teams.

Bernie wants dates in Russia, and a return to the US, while tracks and the governments in India and South Korea want races in the near future. At the same time traditional tracks and nations find their races under threat. Magny-Cours in France is said to have hosted it's last GP last weekend (despite the fact that it appears on the list above). Circuit Gilles Villeneuve in Canada has been slated in recent years due a percieved lack of facilities and a poorly maintained track. Even Silverstone is perennially threatened with the loss of its race. Yes, moves like this push places to improve their facilities - Montreal have already said they will repaved the circuit and Silverstone has recently had massive paddock improvments approved. However, F1 has to remember it is not Bernie's personal play thing, nor the car manufacturers biggest billboard. IT'S A SPORT! IT HAS FANS. Bernie is already presuring Australia into making it's GP a night race, because 3am European starts don't go down well, and now he wants to move more races towards that time zone.

Aside from that there are a few other points. Turkey has moved back to August after this year's race in May, Silverstone has been shuffled up a month to June. The awful and boring Hungaroring remains in place (surely if any track should be taken off the calendar this is it). The two Spanish races (in Barcelona and the Valencia street track) remain despite it being totally unncecessary to have two races there - the resurrection of the 'European' race this year seems to be another money led move, thinly veiled under the excuse that it''s due to Spanish fan's demand following Fernando Alonso. Surely if every race was decided like this ltaly would have half the calender, Britain the other half. On the subject of Italians the old San Marino GP at Imola remains AWOL despite it being another track that's recently upgraded its facilities.

And Formula Two!?

Another thing to come out the FIA's meeting was the plan to resurrect the Formula Two series, as an affordable feeder series, reports put the target cost at 200,000 Euro a year, compared to the current  feeder series, GP2, where a years campaign costs over 1million Euro. No Idea about how they plan to keep costs down to this extent, especially if this new series follows F1 around, like GP2 currently does. And bringing it back full circle Motorsport magazine Autosport descibes this move something that could be a 'clear provocation' to the afore-mentioned Bernie Ecclestone, who position means that GP2 is very much his series. Any new rival feeder series could undermine him, and at least take this chunk of power from him.

I don't know what the US, or wherever you're reading this from, has in the way of Formula One coverage. But this is a blog based on the coverage, and follow up discusssion from todays qualifying in Montreal.

There is some belief that the track is breaking up, especially around turn 7 (where Mark Webber spun today) and the hairpin. And because of this the track is dangerous and the race should be cancelled, and future races should be taken away from Canada, and moved to some obscure Asian country that give F1 a lot of money, only for Bernie Ecclestone to realise that no-one wants races in Asia that start at dot-o'clock European time, so makes them race at night.

This, quite frankly, is ####. The track may be breaking up, and has been doing so for a few years, indeed the Canadians really should have done a proper repave on it, as it's only used two or three times a year for racing, otherwise it's a part of the surrounding park - much like the track at Mexico City.

But it is not more dangerous than many other tracks on the F1 calender, and many others that are raced on all over the world on a far more regular basis. In my opinion, although the track is breaking up, the situation is worsened by the fact that the tyre company uses the two softest available compounds in Canada. Softer compounds = faster tyre wear = more marbles. Marbles occur at every track and every driver has to deal with them. Yet Formula One drivers seem powerless against them. NASCAR (and possibly Rolex) drivers had to cope with the same track. The Busch race last year was longer than is planned tomorrow, with more cars that weigh more, yet no one bleated about the track breaking up then.

Formula One is the pinnacle of motorsport, and occasionally they should prove them. They often only seem to be the best drivers in the world in bright sunshine on a bone dry track. Introduce something into this perfect mix, say like rain, and your mother could do better in a minivan. Monaco a few weeks ago. the finest 20 drivers in the world made their cars have more replacement noses than Michael Jackson. Last year at the Nurburgring more or less the same drivers lost the ability to brake. In Japan they were apparently so unable to drive in the wet, that they needed to be led round by a safety car.

Now they are confused by a track that isn't the perfection they have become accustomed to. Part of racing is always, and always will be, racing the track. All the drivers are on the same track, and the one who wins is the one who adapts to it best. Those that moan about it will most probably be the ones who don't, exhibiting the well known race driver trait of excuse making.

The track, breaking up or not is not dangerous. Compare it to Monaco, where the barriers are stupidly close the who track round, and speeds are not as low as they seem, as recent crashes by Nico Rosberg and David Coulthard prove. Compare it to Interlagos, where a race not that many years ago saw a pair of the biggest crashes in recent year. Compare to Imola, the only track in the last 22 years to claim the life of an F1 driver. The only notable accidents in Montreal have been the occasional freaks you get in racing.

Olivier Panis' 1997 accident was a combination of glancing blows off walls to create an accident at an angle that was never for seen. Robert Kubica's accident last year was a combination of driver error and poor luck. He ran over the back of another car which pitched him into the air. No wheels on the ground = no braking. He then found one of the few wall that was placed an oblique angle to the track, but again this was not a normal place to crash. There are many similarly angled walls around the world, the wall at the exit of the Caltex Chase at Bathurst springs to mind.

There is nothing wrong with Montreal. It's in need of a bit of TLC, but you can say that about a few F1 tracks - Silverstone, Spa, Interlagos. Of course if anything vaguely bad happens tomorrow, all other reasons will be quickly dismissed in favour of blaming the track, and we'll be racing in Soeul next year before we know it.

And what a shame that would be.  

PS: Does anyone else think that the 'NASCAR' area of these blogs should be expanded to 'Motor Racing' in general?

I've brought you blogs on Formula One, blogs on The Rolex 24 Hours, blogs on the Paris Dakar, hell I even camped out in Speedtv.com over the winter commenting on the Champ Car/IRL merger and relaying everything here.

So here is the latest installment of 'Blogs on non-NASCAR, possibly obsure and occasionally niche motorsport events' - The Le Mans 24 Hours.

After the Month of May swept through (or should that be the weather swept through) Indianapolis, the Month of erm....June has landed somewhere in France. For two to three weeks, the road normally known as Route National 24 becomes the Mulsanne Straight and there won't be a lane hogging hatchback in site.

Le Mans remains the historic 24 Hours, above the various incarnations for other series that have sprung up around the globe. When it was Daytona Rolex time I ran through the names of a few drivers from around the world who had arrived for one race. That is also something Le Mans can boast, albeit in smaller numbers. The Rolex 24 finishes before most racing series have even turned a  wheel. This allows drivers from several series to take up drives, NASCAR, open-wheel, European Series. Le Mans sits right in the middle of most seasons, and although for obvious reasons the ALMS series reaches a haitus for Le Mans, most other series carry on meaning only a fluke of luck, or a really nice team boss allow many non-sports car regulars to compete.

Still the entry list isn't lacking any wow! factor if you know where to look.

The obvious big-hitters drive for the favourites in P1 - either Peugeot or Audi. Between the three Peugeot cars the drivers can boast nearly 800 Formula One starts, with Jacques Villeneuve, Pedro Lamy and Alex Wurz being the cheif contributers to the total. The Audis have the sports car pedigree. Frank Beila, Dindo Capello, Allan McNish, Tom Kristensen. No official word on how many wins between them in Le Mans history, but it's a lot. Kristensen alone has 7.

And while the Penske Porshes from the ALMS may have stayed stateside, many other teams and drivers have made the switch. GT2 - the Ferrari and Porsche class, shows the biggest ALMS influence with the giants of Risi Competitione and Flying Lizard making the jump, along with the fellow Porsche of the Farnbacher Loles team. GT1 will doubtless see the renewal of proper hostilities between the American Corvette teams and the European Aston Martins, after the phony-war with the privateer Aston in the ALMS, with the perenial French entry of a Saleen looking to make it a three way battle.

As far as drivers from the ALMS go, where teams have stayed at home, drivers have travelled. Saasha Maasen from the Penske ALMS team has showed up for another of the (ACO friendly) Porsche Spyders in a P2 class where one of the two examples is a shoe-in for victory, as European P2's tend to fall apart very easily. Ben Devlin from the Lola-Mazda ALMS squad has found himself a seat in the Bruichladdich Distillery sponsored Radical car (who despite their annual non-finishes remain my favourite Le Mans team - and it's nothing to do with Whisky). Former Champ Car driver Simeon Paganaud will drive for an all French P1 team, including F1 legend Olivier Panis, who, well, there are worse team-mates. Another name worth mentioning is Peter Dumbreck's return to the track which sent him flying in a Mercedes Prototype in 1999. Only this time he's in a GT2 Spyker - a lot slower and less air-worthy - ironic for a car maker who's badge is a airplane propeller.

Practice took place over the last weekend, which included a huge accident for Marc Gene in one of the Peugeots - shown in the link below from one of the tracks own cameras.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3KfdRTQEiyw>

Qualify takes place a week from now on the Wednesday and Thursday, before the race over the 14th and 15th June.

As for my picks.

P1 - Yawn, probably Audi. The Peugeot has been fast all season, Sebring was probably the best comparison, and they've had a lot of success in the European endurance season, but they are a little unreliable, again evidenced by Sebring. I'd love to see a Peugoet win it, or better yet, something not powered by a diesel engine, but hell will become the venue for the 2014 winter Olympics before that happens. As a side story if Jacques wins he will become one of the few driver to win one of the Big Three's of Motorsport - Indy 500, F1 title and Le Mans.

P2 - If one of the Porsche Spyders doesn't win, something's wrong. They've been fast in the practice and the American P2s seem indistructable compared to their European counterparts. It got to the point last season where the eventual P2 winner, had such a big lead that they brought him into the pits for an hour because the reliability was so shocking they were scared to keep going.

GT1 - Aston, Corvette, Aston, Corvette, Aston, Corvette. I'm a Brit - Aston. It'll be close, but the colonial power will reign again.

GT2 - Either a Ferrari or a Porsche, the Spykers who make up the number don't stand a chance. Chances are it'll be one of the ALMS travellers, so I'm going for the Flying Lizard car. These guys know endurance racing. Plus I don't like Risi driver Mika Salo after his ALMS temper tantrum a few years ago.

Enough has been written on these blog pages about various qualifying systems to create a fairly decent sized book.

We are almost universally agreed that the NASCAR system sucks to high heaven. Whether it be the system in general or the top-35 rule that comes as the ugly cousin tagging along behind it. Only narrowly behind the France family's offering is the third hand re-hashed system employed by Formula One. The Powers That Be behind the sport have been trying to crack the qualifying enigma code for nearly a decade. Moving for the 12 laps over and hour session of old, through the single lap qualifying format to the (pretty disaterous) two single lap aggregate system, before settling on the three stage system that has been tweaked and twisted over the last two seasons.

It is this three stage system that has been picked up in other forms of motorsport, from the DTM (German Touring Car Championship) and a modified system being used by the Indycar series at road courses.

All over the world there may well be as many qualifying formats as there are race series, yet they all aim to do the same thing - make qualifying interesting. That's it. Whether it be for the drivers, for the fans who come to the track or the people watching on TV. All these different systems aim, and miss. There may be occasional times when it gets interesting, when the whether changes, when there are suprises, but the seldom are. Take the three stage f1 example. When it was introduced it was good, drivers where frantically lapping, but now a few seasons down the line the teams have it down to an art, the top guys sit in the garages until the lasp possible moment, knowing full well they have no problem, all drama gone. The problem is that the idea of qualifying is boring. It is cars going round on single laps, racing other drivers who happen to be on the track is practically prohibited.

At least that's what I thought before I found I could watch practice and qualifying for the Indy 500 via the internet. OK, not every race in the word has a whole month at it's disposal to set-up the cars. But it does have three days of real, interesting, qualifying. A system where each place is fought over dramatically as the pole. The Danica Patrick's of the sport were afforded as much attention and importance as the "back-markers" - Buddy Lazier, Max Papis, Marty Roth - (when was the last time you could say that about most motorsport) Where teams take a risk trying to go faster. Yes, you could improve, but you could go backwards - ripping the safety blanket of a 'banker' lap away. The final 'bump day' was the most spectacular, teams trying everything to get into the race in a way that NASCAR's top-35 rule never quite seems to deliver. Teams that had struggled all month suddenly found speed, teams that had been on the pace all month suddenly found themselves facing an uphill struggle. Everything came down to the minute, when in a last attempt the final runner, Mario Dominguez smacked the wall.

It was what qualifying should be - fast, exciting, dramatic, all or nothing and, probably most important for the people behind the sport, incredibly watchable. Good qualifying should be an advert for the race, not a giveaway for who may win. That was what the Indy system is.  

It's the summer. And so it's time for what, in my mind is the essential trio of summer races. The Indy 500, the Monaco GP and the Le Mans 24 hours. 3 of the most famous races of the year, taking place in the space of about a month. However, they are also three of the more dangerous races on a racing calendar, with both Le Mans and Indianapolis being among the five tracks to have claimed the most lives.

Motor Racing is dangerous. We know it. The drivers know it. Everytime they step into a car somewhere they must know that they could be injured or worse (no doubt the try to put this out of their mind as much as possible). Everytime we watch on TV and see a bad accident there is a split econd where we may feel the worst. The moment we saw the blue tarpaulin over Hiekki Kovalienen's car after his crash in Barcalona, the split second on radio silence before a window net comes down.

Motor Racing is dangerous, but not as dangerous as it used to be. There have been many advances in various safety equipment over the last decade or so. The SAFER barrier, and their extended use from just the outside of the corner to inside walls. The increased safety in NASCAR's new COT, shown to a massive extent during Michael McDowell's horror accident in Texas, the stronger shell, the fire-proofing, the bigger windows for an easier escape, moving the driver towards the middle of the car, a move which, if universal would have had Dario Franchitti racing this weekend. The HANS device, probably the biggest peice of technology to increase safety, making deaths like Dale Sr's and Roland Ratzenburger's basically a thing of the past, and probably saving Robert Kubica and Kovalienen, among many, many others in the process.

Track owners, more often the target of fan anger for one reason or another have also helped, installing barriers, increasing medical facilities, and rules makers, accused of faviouritism, inconsistency. I can hardly imagine a NASCAR race with racing back to the line after yellow.

But all of these things pale into insignificance compared to the biggest thing that makes motorsport safer - the safety crews. To be honest you probably take them for granted. You only notice them when they're not there. Often before cars have stopped spinning, flipping and crashing the safety crews are on the track. They are better trained than ever before, better equiped. Gone are the days when fellow racing drivers were better prepared to deal with fires than marshals wearing jeans. And now consider not only the teams who work for the big sanctioning bodies, at the big tracks. But also think of the, probably voluntary, guys who work at your local track, attend race tracks for public track days.

What they do is also dangerous. Even the marshals that work at well-maintained international circuits work in the face of danger. They put themselves in the way when motorsport is at it's most dangerous. When a car's on fire everyone moves away from it, yet track workers move towards it. These marshals love racing as much as any of us, they make it possible. And personally I thank them. The summer wouldn't be the same without them.