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.  

Rain shortened races are a matter of course in oval racing - NASCAR, Indycar, even European oval series retreat to the garage when the wet stuff appears. In this position they share a dubious position in the sport with their cousin - the fuel mileage race - they seem to somehow de-value the win and often bring some criticism to whoever wins them.

'They didn't deserve to win'

'They got lucky'

Remember Danica's win in Montegi, OK there may have been a ugly dollop of sexism in there but it was all hidden under a layer of fuel mileage race criticism.

Now, leaving the fuel mileage race comparison alone. I have no problem with them, infact they are often the most interesting thing about the races that spawn. Let's concentrate on the rainy races.

NASCAR currently operates under a rule that once the race has run 50% of its intended distance, it counts as a full race. If the rain starts to fall and the track can't be dried, and the race completed, and the lucky guys get the win. Again, luck always has a place in sports, I'm sure that some people would like it to be eliminated from them, but Lady Luck is sort of hard to write rules against. (although the idea of NASCAR publishing a press release citing Lady Luck, Mother Nature or indeed God with 'Actions detrimental to Srock Car Racing' is priceless)

But luck plays a overly-massive part in rain race hence, like fuel mileage races their results often look like a typo. Kurt, Mikey, Yeley, Truex and Sadler as the top-5. No Honest, go check, see, it really happened.

But do these drivers deserve to be credited with the full number of points when they 'win' a rain shortened race.

I say no.

There may be an element of strategy invloved, or being the best at spotting the green blob on the radar but mostly it's all dumb luck. 9/10 times the drivers that get the good results are the ones that gamble. I like gambling, well at least by sportsmen, well done them for gambling and it paying off. But they didn't really 'win' if the race had reached its actual conclusion they probably wouldn't have won.

So I propose that shortened race winners are given shortened points, depending on how long the race is. Let the winner keep the Chase bonus points and the top-5 and 10's for the stats columns. Obviously to work out the percentage of the race completed to work out the percentage of points given is over complicated so the number of points awarded would be based on the rough number of laps completed - rounded to the nearest 'big' milestone - 50%, 75% or the full 100%.  

The same percentage of points all the way down the chart, keeping it fair, but stopping dumb luck from influencing important point standings too much. Imagine of the Richmond pre-chase race is rain shortened and what the normal roulette could cause.

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.

It's taken me a few days to get round to writing this, I apologise if I'm posting over anyone who has already posted something along these lines.

Everytime a tragedy strikes anywhere, no matter who it affects and what happened in the run up to it, questions are always asked - 'what could have been done stop it', and of course the death of a race driver - a participant in the most technologically driven type of sport in the world - may attract more of these questions from more people.

As tragic as any fatal accident is you can often be assured that something positive will emerge from it. New safety measures, new rules. Ayrton Senna's 1994 crash at Imola led to a number of chicanes being added to many tracks to slow down the cars before potential danger points, Greg Moore's horrific crash at Fontana, led to the infields of most tracks being paved to prevent cars being flipped as they climb from grass to paved infield roads. So what might come from Saturday's events.

The possible cause of initial explosion, just before the finish line, is beyond me. I know next to nothing about the internal workings of NHRA engines, so I'm not going to venture towards trying to cure any problems there.

No, the major problem is the massive lack of proper run off at the end of the track. Sure they have the extra paved length after the quarter mile. That works fine for working cars with deployed chutes. But surely it is obvious that, unfortunately not every run ends with two working with deployed chutes gracefully coasting to a halt.

When I saw the accident I was reminded of so many from the past. When I was younger I had several of the VHS video collections of racing accidents, mostly from America. Even at the age of about 7 I was very aware that drag racing was very dangerous, but several of the older accidents I remember showed that levels of safety at the tracks were far below those needed by the speeds of the cars that raced there. The fact that the outside walls were terrifyingly low, the fact that some tracks have areas of trees or large banks of sand just off the track. And the fact that the last line of defence in stopping cars was sand traps, safety nets, and walls.

All three are workable ways of stopping out of control race cars, all three have been used in other motorsport. But. Sand traps are fast disappearing from road course style tracks, in favour of high grip asphalt run-offs, the sort that are often seen at the newer tracks in F1, because sand has a habit of flipping cars if they dig in to far, and at too high a speed. Catch fencing was found at many tracks around the world during the 1970's and 1980's, but that exactly the point. They are outdated. Walls still surround a vast number of tracks. However, some have tyres in front of them, others have been clad in SAFER barrier.

All these systems have been phased out of circuit racing for good reasons, yet the NHRA continues to use them.

There is no simple solution to stop a dragster, to wait for them to stop of their own momentum could take more space than is realistic, I can't think of a truly workable solution. But there has to be something safer than sand traps, catch fencing and walls.

Wow! The annual exercise in sleep deprivation has come to an end, with another win for the Audi team. But wait, it's not as predictable as it sounds.

Their main opposition for the overall victory came from the works French Peugeot's, who came back with three cars this year, after struggling with two last year. They were much faster in qualifying sending people running to the record books for the fastest ever lap of the track, even going back before various chicanes were scatterered around the circuit. But the question remained could the Peugeots keep up the speed for the whole race, without the wheels falling off.

But the drama was not kept to the top class. The GT2 category - the home to the armies of Porsche 997s and Ferrari's saw the first big news. When the American Flying Lizard Motorsport car was taken out, and while it limped back to the pits (unlike ALMS races an Sebring a car can only contiue if it makes it back to the pits under it's own power - no tow-truck rides here), missing a pretty large chunk of car, it was too badly damaged to contend for the eventual class win. They were one of many teams who seemed to contend with complete rebuilds over the course of the race. 

There was the normal parade of walking wounded through the race. The Lizard Posrche, a beautiful Aston Martin engined P1 car (fielded by Charouz Racing) perhaps took the best moment when it drove a majority of the 8-mile circuit with most of its front end hanging off. Although the team with the Saleen GT1 car deserve a mention for driving about the same distance with three wheels! Not a flat tyre - the wheel had just fallen off. The best opportunist move of the race came right at the end when the Bruichladdich Radical, another which had coped with everything going wrong - including faulty seat belts - took up the shotgun position for the much photographed ceremonial finish - way to give some love to your sponsors!

The GT2 category was won by another American team - Risi Competitione - in their red car (as opposed to their green one, which made a very early exit and became a parts muel for every other Ferrari, well at least one which was seen with one of their spare doors).

The GT1 class went the way of the British Aston Martins, over the American Corvettes, which is a great result (please - don't hurt me). However, as expected it was incredibly close. After 24 hours of racing the winning Aston, in the hands of ALMS Acura drive David Brabham, and secong placed Corvette crossed the line 4 minutes 23 seconds apart. Of course now the Corvettes can go back to beating no-one in the ALMS.

P2 went the way of another American export (well, sort of) as the two privateer Porsche Spyders finished 1-2 with the Dutch run car beating the Danish one. There were none of the expected reliability problems for the cars, as baring a few niggles both ran trouble free, finishing in a position that mark the first time "In memory" (to quote the media coverage I had) that the lead P2 car had beaten the GT1 winner. Yes P2 reliablity really is normally that bad. Behind the Porsches reliability was key. Every car had problems - accidents, mechanical problems, combinations of the two, meaning that the 6 (out of 11 P2 that started) finishers in the class were spread over 54 laps.

But, back to P1. The class probably gave me moment of the race, when a spanish entry needed a COMPLETE gearbox repair. Not a new on (rules again) but the broken one to be rebuilt. It only took them 6 hours. So when the same thing happened again about 5 hours from the end they were asked what they were going to do. They said they were going to do it again, and when reminded of the time they said 'We're getting quite good at it".

The race almost went down to the wire. Different tyre choices in changing conditions, led to the chasing Peugoet taking 5 seconds out of the lead a lap, a pace that would see one of the closest finishes ever. However, it was not to be. Some problem with the tyres - puncture maybe - led to the Peugeot having to complete a complete lap with the rear end  swaying back and forth uncontrolably. The Peugeot was lapped, effectively ending the chase baring catastrophes to the lead Audi, with never came.

The Audi of Allan McNish, Dindo Capello and Tom Kristenson won, giving Kristenson a phonomenal 8th Le Man win, with McNish and Capello picked up their 2nd and 3rd wins respectively.

Now we just have to wait until next June. And with rumours abounding that the organisers are going to attempt to equalise the diesel and conventional petrol cars, and that Audi will pull out to the Prototype classes, with veiws on a GT car, who knows what we'll get.   

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.

2008 sits in the era of corporate NASCAR. Multi-million dollar teams, huge purses at races, well (over?) paid drivers with dozens of sponsor endorsements. But the same is also true of the tracks that they race on.

NASCAR's premier series are pretty much dominated by two track owning companies. The Francs family's International Speedway Co and Speedway Motorsports Inc., with a handful of tracks, Dover, Pocono etc independently owned.

These two large companies, and tracks in general, sporadically become the headlines in NASCAR - the 'I'll close Lowe's unless I can big a drap strip' fiasco, and this week due to SMI's acquisition of the much maligned Kentucky Speedway. It's this purchase that has threatened to show how much power the track owners now have in NASCAR. Having brought Kentucky the natural follow-up is to make it worthwhile, or in the NASCAR world - get a Sprint Cup race there. I'm not going to begrudge the fact that Kentucky (or other tracks) deserve more/a NASCAR race, but it's how they go about doing it that seems to be the problem.

As soon as the purchase was announced, with it's obvious intention, comments from the current owners of Pocono appeared saying it wasn't for sale. Now with all eyes on Dover, as the track hosts its first race of the year, it being another independent track is now slated for purchase in some reporter's eyes. This is not about whether you think that these two tracks deserve the two dates they currently have (although in my opinion the answer is 'no' and 'yes'). If SMI want a race at Kentucky, then move a date from one of the other tracks they already own, preferably California or Texas. But they won't. That's the point.

As businesses they will always choose what's best for them, not for the sport they are linked to. At California attendences have been low and races haven't exactly set the world on fire. A majority of fans would agree that if a track doesn't need 2 races California is one of them, but at the moment it apparently remains marketable so no move.

But is it really that bad? Here I have a feeling is an issue where old-school fans and new-comers will be divided on those lines. California and the west coast is home to a big market that could be tappen by NASCAR - there are enough Californian NASCAR drivers now to provide a pretty big pull. To continue to grow NASCAR needs a presence in the area. But at what expense. History? Tradition? Pretty much every year a cry goes up from traditionalists after Daytona about the demise of Rockingham. Every so often a wimper is heard of North Wilkesboro. People complain that they have closed (or at least lost dates) and racing moved away from NASCAR's traditional home.

Good. NASCAR isn't just a southern, or indeed American sport anymore. Too many tracks in one area is unworkable, America is a big country and NASCAR needs to fill all of it, not just one corner. It's either expansion or death.

What should decide the home of NASCAR's races? Fans or Lawyers? Should track owning companies just be able to up and move dates (albeit with NASCAR's approval) from one track to another? Should independent tracks consistently be threatened with purchase and closure? Is there too much Track Power?

WARNING:  If you haven't seen the Monaco GP race yet, and don't want to have everything spoilt for you by me, DO NOT read this. If you have and you want to read thinly veiled rant about the result, read on.

Firstly - why can't Formula 1 (and European based series in general) understand Safety/Pace Cars?

Safety cars are a thing that have become normal in Formula One in recent years, especially at tracks like Monaco and Montreal. Before last season a new rule was introduced on safety grounds. The pit road would now be closed for a number of laps while the entire field was collected behind the Safety Car. The thinking being that it stopped drivers from hurtling round the track, through, hypothetically, shards of  Carbon Fibre, Turn Workers and Medical/Recovery vehicles, to take advantage of the SC. To me this makes perfect sense. However, to the big wigs and brains behind Formula One strategies fail to understand this. As part of the rule if you pitted for fuel before the pits were open you would be given a drive-through penalty. Of course in order to do this a car may have to carry a few laps surplus fuel compared to when they want to pit. THAT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. Yet people continue to be caught out by it. While the SC periods of this race went off without incident, mainly due to their timing (very early and very late), the rule has cost people in the past - Alonso at Canada last year, Hiedfeld at Barcalona earlier this season after Kovalienen's crash. It's not like this rule is sprung on the at the last minute. It's in the rule book. The same rule book teams probably pour over for months trying to find a grey area and push the envelope on their cars and strategy.

Worst comes with the farcical rule that ALL lapped cars can overtake the leaders, unlapping themselves. This isn't just a lucky dog - it's a whole litter of them. I can understand why this is done. In years past a lapped car stuck between the leader and 2nd (or similar scenario) has allowed a massive gap to open up, killing off any race. However, wouldn't it be easier ( and a lot quicker) to have them drop to the back of the train of cars - preserving the one lap deficit that the lead cars have been good enough to build up, rather than gifting a lap back to those who have up to that point struggled. Today's race saw Kovalienen and Hiedfeld take a number of laps to overtake the lead pack, and who knows what effect that had on results (both theirs', and others' - well specifically Kovalienen's as Hiedfeld was already about 4 laps down.

Today's other big races. The Indy 500 and the Coke 600 will both see numerous Safety Car periods, and all will be handled far better than F1 ever does.

Secondly. Apply here to join the 'We hate Kimi Raikkonen Collective'.

The man is a --------- (something that FOX will probably censor, so I'll let you choose your own word to fill that gap). He is utterly uninspiring (I've referred to him on here before as 'The world's most boring Finn' and I stand by that) and incredibly overrated. He spent years at McLaren breaking cars simply by looking at them, lucked into his only championship because the other team got it's knickers in a twist and has spent this a fair chunk of this season missing bits of car. Round 1 Australia. Spins a few times in some truly rookie errors. Rounds Then-Now. Looks second best to Massa, who, while far from perfect, looks like he should have the number 1 on his car.

Now he proves his talect is very limited. Going straight on at the first corner and making a royal hash-up of the chicane to take out Adrian Sutil - this week's unluckiest man in sport. If it was the other way round - Sutil in the inferior car, screwing up and taking Raikkonen out, everyone would be up in arms about how Sutil doesn't deserve to be in Formula One. But when Kimi does it nothing happens. Mike Gasgoyne, part of the upper echelons of Sutil's Force India team, says that the team have complained to the stewards about the accident, and well they should. Drivers have been penalised before for causing avoidable accidents - and that's what it was. I'm saying Kimi went out ot try and take Sutil out, but I can't help but think that he always knew he had the car there as his own personal crash barrier, and so made little/no effort to avoid it. However, nothing will happen as it's a Ferrari that the FIA will be punishing, and that's like Turkey's voting for an early Christmas.

What made it worse is that post race the head of Ferrari was interviewed by British TV, and asked if he felt bad because one of his driver screwed up and cost a team and a young driver their first points. His primary concern is that THEY lost points. I understand the competitive nature of sport, but have some heart. It's not like they are battling with Force India or Sutil for a title. It's not like Sutil didn't deserve to be there. He earnt that position, by not making any mistakes, something that cannot be said of Ferrari today. I hope that there is some sort of apology from Ferrari, either verbal or financial (Ferrari supply Force India's engines) to show that Ferrari are not complete --------- (use you chosen word again).  

Yep. When aked about whether he'd like to drive in Formula One, Marco Andretti came out with this gem, claiming that he is well aware of the sort of underhand tactics that come as part of a drive in Formula One.

There is no denying that Formula One is far from squeaky clean. You only have to look at last years Stepney-gate fiasco between McLaren and Ferrari and the fighting between the teams at the back of the grid to try and get each other kicked out due to percieved idea that customer cars are illegal (Note: they're not, but soon will be). However, trying underhand back-stabbing to try and get one over on your competitors in a multi-million pound sport is nothing new. I could cite hundreds of cheating cases that would prove that for just about every sport going, but sabataging your own team. Now even for Formula One that seems a bit extreme.

The story goes like this. Micheal Andretti was brought over to F1 by McLaren in 1993 after 10 years in CART and a place as a runner up in the 1992 Championship. At the time McLaren were one of the big teams, having finished second in the constructors title to the dominant Williams team whose drivers took 1st and 2nd in that years drivers championship. To follow up they paired up multi-world champion Aryton Senna with Michael Andretti.

One thing about the following season is certain. Senna finished second in the drivers race and Andretti garnered only 7 points, and was replaced by a yound Finn called Mika Hakkinen for the final three races of the season.

Conventional wisdom is, like many drivers who have moved quickly from one form of racing to another, that Andretti struggled to come to terms with the differences in the Indycar's he was familiar with and the Formula One cars. Even in 1993 Formula One cars were massively spohisticated with a dazzling array of electrics and driver aids.

However, this is where Marco's opinion comes in, did McLaren use these electonics to sabotage his dad. Micheal did have a shocker, retiring in 7 out of his 13 races. Marco insists that the sabotage only stopped when Senna himself, who apparently knew what was going on, stepped in.  Admitedly, Michael's performance picks up. An 8th in Belgium, before at podium in his final race at Monza. Had Senna got the team to stop doing what ever skull-duggering they were up to, or was the Monza result because of the high attrition rate that day - with 6 out of the 10 drivers eventually to finish above Andretti in championship retiring and champion Alain Prost coming home 12th.

Either way the damage was done. Andretti was fired before the last three races of the season, to be replaced by Hakkinen, who had been the team's test driver and was (according to Marco) going to be paid far less. Andretti went back to the US and was never heard of again in F1.

McLaren are being predictably tight lipped about the whole thing, and any record of Senna's part in the story was lost into the wall at Tamberello corner in 1994. Even Michael has stayed silent so far.

What to make of it. The Truth? A young man taking advantage of a media opportunity the week before his biggest race of the year? A Formula One question that stirred the memories of a bedtime story that was told to a 6-year-old by his dad when he couldn't find "The Little Engine That Could".

My guess is a combination of the last two.

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.  

Basically just a lot of little things that don't really have enough to have a blog bit all to themselves.

Last weekend was clearly a weekend for enormous accidents. The well documented Heikki Kovalienen crah at Barcalona grabbed the headlines for the obvious reason that it was watched by several million. However, he has found himself well and truly trumped by an accident earily reminescent of the back flipping Le Mans Mercedes' of Mark Webber and Peter Dumbreck back in 1999 and Yannick Dalmas similar accident in a Porsche. The place is Monza, the race is a Le Mans Series race. The driver, and eventual passenger, is Stephane Ortelli in a P1 Courage.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0_yfiE9Esfg>

Only injury was a broken ankle.

And before moving on from big crashs, I think Kovalienen's crash is another  illustration of the improvement of safety equipment in motorsport, coming 14 years to the week after the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix.

Now a NASCAR story. It seems Dario's been getting some cheeky advice through bribary. He's managed to get another driver addicted to Dairy Milk chocolate (the company responsible for the Phil-Collins-####-Drum-Advert and an even more fantastic current advert). Being a British brand Dario must have some sort of a monopoly on supply and he's paying another driver for advice in chocolate. There's no word on who the choc-fiend is but I'll put money on Reed Sorenson.

And lastly the newly interesting Indycar Series roars towards the Indy 500. 4 different winners (5 if you include the race at Long Beach) and 39 entries for 33 places in the race. For the first time I can remember I'm actually interested in it beyond seeing the race. If what's already gone on this season is anything to go by it should be a treat. Graham Rahal became the youngest ever winner, Danica finally won something (I don't care less if it was fuel mileage or whether rival were told to let here by), the transition teams aren't doing nearly as badly as they were expected to do on the ovals, signified by Justin Wilson leading a handful of laps and finishing in the top 10 at Kansas. And the month of practice and the qualifying procedure that makes quantum physics look simple, let alone the Daytona Duels, could always throw up suprises and even the playing field.

Of course there'll be no Sam Hornish, if you believe what he says. It's an important move - as he says 'he's a Stock Car driver' - he could have jumped back but he's showing the sort of dedication I've admired in him from day one in NASCAR when it wasn't going very well. He could have gone crying off back to a series where he has the ability to dominate, but he stuck at it.

There are still a number of teams that are TBA, I wonder if anyone has the cash to draft Jacques Villeneuve in for a race. I mean, it's not like he's doing anything.

We all had them at school, you may even have been one at school. I know I was. The "Look at Me!!" kid. He/she may not have been as clever/funny/attractive, or whatever counts in school this year, as the other kids in the class, but they refused to sit down, shut up and get on with their work. They wanted attention, they wanted people to look at them.

And in Sports School right now the look at me kid is Indycar.

Excuse me while I torture this metaphor some more. We all know about the kid's parents rather colourful private life over the off-season. The will they, won't they shack up together to provide a stable home life scenario, but the kid has not only survived the yelling and the kind of plate smashing displayed by Lester Burnham in American Beauty, but it seems he's become stronger because of it.

The school year started predictably enough. The trauma of his home life left the poor child with a pretty severe case of bi-polar disorder. Half of him was running around the class room getting all the attention and glory, while the other half languished in the corner of the classroom, running itself over at restarts (yes, I think the metaphor is tiring now too). The schools Psychiatrist shook her head, it wa exactly what they'd feared in the pre-year staff meeting, the kid's parents moving in together was doing it more harm than good, the fear was that the parents would see how bad little Indy was getting and split up again, and who knows what might happen to the poor child if that happened. He might even end up living on the streets.

And so he did, but it did him the world of good. Suddenly the two halves of the child became one, working in harmony to provide a well balanced, socially acceptable human being that the world could love. The side previously running amok in the classroom took a back seat and allowed the quiet hidden side to take centre stage with unexpected and record breaking consequences. Everyone took notice, the stable home life seemed to be working, the changes in the child's behaviour were starting to be seen far far sooner than anyone thought they would. Perhaps the parents had made the right choice.

More recently the two sides of the child have parted ways, but again for the better. The louder side has finally proved what it can do, as an element of Indy's personality probably better known for posing in swimwear that doing anything really helpful to the child as a whole (sorry, there goes the metaphor again), has finally started to pull it's weight. As the child performs better more people become interested in its progress towards adulthood, and it's recent showings have been very strong. Now hopefully the other side of personality can keep up the good work.

The better the child gets the more people want to go to its school. A prestigious open day in May looks like it's going to have to turn visitors away due to demand. Big businesses will want to sponsor its sports team, more people want to teach there. And that's good for the school, the child and all the parents everywhere.