After a most stimulating and entertaining beginning to the 2012 season, Formula 1's pivotal European season commences in Barcelona this weekend. The opening batch of "fly-away" races have undoubtedly whetted the appetite for the competition to come.
The Red Bull team will approach the race in Spain in good heart after their upturn in fortunes in Bahrain. Despite Vettel's victory there, there was little suggestion of the old invincibility or any permanence to this state of affairs. Some might argue that the results in Bahrain owed at least something to the shortcomings and errors of others.
McLaren's display in the last race was shambolic, and quite out of character. Some of the wounds were self-inflicted, and unforced errors are likely to be costly in this ultra-competitive season. They seem to have taken some steps to address the failings shown last time out, and have some upgrades coming on stream in Spain. The track in Barcelona has a reputation for favouring good, all-round cars, and this should stand McLaren in good stead this weekend. The MP4-27 has not become a bad car overnight.
The Mugello test, not surprisingly, was largely inconclusive. The form of Ferrari is still uncertain and hard to predict, with some modifications not emerging until the team arrives in Barcelona. Fernando Alonso will be hoping for some improvement for his home Grand Prix. There is a danger that the competition could disappear over the horizon.
All things being equal, we should expect Lotus, Sauber and Mercedes to continue their role as realistic challengers for victory. Of these, Lotus in particular seem to be doing all the right things, with a positive approach, and a pair of drivers who are feeding off and motivating each other. They now need to demonstrate that they are capable of crossing that invisible barrier which separates them from becoming winners in 2012....
Mercedes have still yet to be totally convincing in race trim, but appear to be vaguely moving in the right direction. Sauber will also be hoping to notch up more consistent race results.
The subject of tyres was very much a hot topic of conversation after Bahrain, prompted largely by Michael Schumacher's post-race remarks. The debate on tyres has not quite escalated in the way that Schumacher may have hoped, with some F1 figures appearing to offer qualified support for Pirelli, but it provides an interesting sub-plot, and the controversy may well re-ignite in Spain, if tyre wear continues to play a central role in the performance of teams and the outcome of the race.
Occasionally in the past, what appeared to be a wide-open season has been transformed by a sudden technical breakthrough or sweet-spot being discovered by a competing team, but 2012 does not seem to conform to that description. All the available evidence points to more of what we have been treated to in the first four races.
Five different winners in the first five Grands Prix? Don't rule it out.....
Thursday, 10 May 2012
Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Racing In The Rain - John Horsman
I have resolved to spend more time reading, and in some cases re-reading, lots of books on motorsport history. One which I never tire of is the wonderful Racing In The Rain, by John Horsman.
The book colourfully but informatively chronicles Horsman's involvement with the motorsport projects of Aston Martin, Ford and Porsche, mainly through his role with John Wyer's organisation.
The early stages of the book evoke a real sense of post-war and 1950s Britain, its optimism and its relative simplicity. It moves up a gear when we move into the Aston Martin years, and there are some great anecdotes from this era. It is safe to say that technology had a way to go, and improvisation was often the order of the day!
Horsman's enthusiasm for his work and his subject comes through in every word. One thing which gives the book some bite is the author's willingness to be frank in his appraisal of mistakes made, and particularly in apportioning responsibility. There is some exasperation with the politics of the GT40 project, and also with the vagaries of the subsequent relationship with Porsche. Although the descriptions of these things are candid, they never detract from the book's overall charm.
The early stages of the book in particular are greatly enhanced by the author's own wonderfully evocative and atmospheric photographs.
John Horsman's own detailed technical recollections and data mean that this book should appeal both on a human level, and also for those whose interest is more of a mechanical nature. Some of the descriptions of frantic pre-race preparations and test sessions induce a real sense of "being there".
I would recommend this book to any motorsport enthusiast. A real gem.
The book colourfully but informatively chronicles Horsman's involvement with the motorsport projects of Aston Martin, Ford and Porsche, mainly through his role with John Wyer's organisation.
The early stages of the book evoke a real sense of post-war and 1950s Britain, its optimism and its relative simplicity. It moves up a gear when we move into the Aston Martin years, and there are some great anecdotes from this era. It is safe to say that technology had a way to go, and improvisation was often the order of the day!
Horsman's enthusiasm for his work and his subject comes through in every word. One thing which gives the book some bite is the author's willingness to be frank in his appraisal of mistakes made, and particularly in apportioning responsibility. There is some exasperation with the politics of the GT40 project, and also with the vagaries of the subsequent relationship with Porsche. Although the descriptions of these things are candid, they never detract from the book's overall charm.
The early stages of the book in particular are greatly enhanced by the author's own wonderfully evocative and atmospheric photographs.
John Horsman's own detailed technical recollections and data mean that this book should appeal both on a human level, and also for those whose interest is more of a mechanical nature. Some of the descriptions of frantic pre-race preparations and test sessions induce a real sense of "being there".
I would recommend this book to any motorsport enthusiast. A real gem.
Friday, 4 May 2012
Senna versus Prost - Malcolm Folley
I recently purchased the Kindle version of Malcolm Folley's book Senna versus Prost.
My appreciation of this book blossomed as my reading of it progressed. Following the first few chapters, I found myself lamenting that it offered little in the way of new information, and the format itself seemed clumsy and confusing. However, as I worked my way through it, it began to make a lot more sense.
The stated remit of this publication, to chronicle the legendary rivalry between Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost, is not always adhered to slavishly, and it often feels more like a re-telling of Formula 1 history in the approximate period 1980-1994. The text sometimes dwells on issues with only a tenuous or indirect link to the Senna versus Prost dynamic. To be fair, these tangents often make for enlightening and entertaining reading!
The problem faced by any author seeking to tell the tale of "Senna versus Prost" is that there is very little genuinely new to say, the story having been analysed and committed to paper ad nauseam. However, Folley does a creditable job, taking the trouble to undertake new interviews with many of the key figures, including Prost himself, and also drivers and team personnel who were closely connected to the two men. The input of these individuals, particularly their colourful and amusing "behind the scenes" anecdotes, forms the backbone of the book for me.
Whether or not this book merely retraces old ground will depend to some extent on the vintage of the reader, and also which books and articles they have accessed over the years. The genuinely new information can be extracted with care.
To his credit, I thought that Folley did a fine job of conveying a sense of how the atmosphere between the two drivers, within the McLaren team, and in the sport generally, gradually became more poisonous, particularly in the period 1989-1993. It also brought back to me vividly the bitter taste which I felt in my mouth around the time of Suzuka '89. The egos and back-biting are certainly laid bare here., and some of the memories are unedifying, but compelling nonetheless. It all makes some of the controversies of more recent times seem tame by comparison.
Surprises? Well, I thought that the 1990 season overall was given scant coverage, and the actual race in Japan in 1989 was not described as intensively as I expected, though in fairness the off-track aftermath is done justice.
So how do the two drivers emerge from it all? Prost appeared principled but perhaps naive, realising too late that in the shape of Senna he was dealing with somebody on a different plane, talent and personality wise, to what he had previously been confronted with. One could also argue that he was embroiled in just as many, if not more, intrigues as Senna, and with more different team-mates....
The genius and prodigious talent and intensity of Senna are amply outlined, but his flaws are not overlooked, the author largely leaving the words of the Brazilian's contemporaries and rivals to tell the tale.
To hardcore enthusiasts and historians, the treatement of some aspects of this tale might seem overly simplistic and "populist", but for the uninitiated or the casual reader, it will be be different. This is arguably a cut above your average, run-of-the-mill, Formula 1 pot-boiler. The book benefits from the passage of time, as this allows a more detached and nuanced assessment, and some key protagonists are willing and able to be more forthcoming, candid and frank with their opinions. Jo Ramirez, Damon Hill, Martin Brundle and Derek Warwick and others offer cutting opinions and verdicts.
All in all, a good read, but it may well be that the definitive book on the Senna/Prost era has yet to be written....
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
Roy Hodgson
So, Roy Hodgson has been announced as the new England football manager.
After the feverish speculation concerning Harry Redknapp's potential candidature, many observers may view this news as underwhelming, but it is difficult to fault the choice from several perspectives. Hodgson may appear to lack the dynamism and media-savvy of some of the other people mentioned in connection with the job, but he does possess some admirable qualities.
Hodgson has a long and varied coaching career behind him, in many countries and many environments, building up a massive bank of technical knowledge and expertise. He is respected by those within the game, and from the Football Association's point of view, represents a safe pair of hands. Crucially perhaps, he has extensive experience of the international game itself, in addition to his endeavours in club football.
Some will no doubt point to his relative lack of major success in the absolute top echelons of club football, but are those credentials necessarily what is required for an international manager these days? Rather, tactical and technical nous and diplomatic acumen are seen as pre-requisites. In any event, Hodgson has done a solid job during his tenure with West Bromwich Albion, and elsewhere....
Of course, Euro 2012 is very much looming, but the lack of preparation time could actually work to England's advantage, engendering a greater team spirit and togetherness, as well as a determination to prove the doubters wrong. There are historical precedents for teams thrown together in less than ideal circumstances summoning up the resolve and cohesion necessary to prevail.
It is also gratifying that the position of England boss is to be occupied by somebody who desired the job for the right reasons, and sees it as the culmination of what he has been working towards throughout his career. This came through in this afternoon's press conference, as did the genuine affection and respect in which he his held.
I, and I expect many others, wish Roy Hodgson every success in his new role.
After the feverish speculation concerning Harry Redknapp's potential candidature, many observers may view this news as underwhelming, but it is difficult to fault the choice from several perspectives. Hodgson may appear to lack the dynamism and media-savvy of some of the other people mentioned in connection with the job, but he does possess some admirable qualities.
Hodgson has a long and varied coaching career behind him, in many countries and many environments, building up a massive bank of technical knowledge and expertise. He is respected by those within the game, and from the Football Association's point of view, represents a safe pair of hands. Crucially perhaps, he has extensive experience of the international game itself, in addition to his endeavours in club football.
Some will no doubt point to his relative lack of major success in the absolute top echelons of club football, but are those credentials necessarily what is required for an international manager these days? Rather, tactical and technical nous and diplomatic acumen are seen as pre-requisites. In any event, Hodgson has done a solid job during his tenure with West Bromwich Albion, and elsewhere....
Of course, Euro 2012 is very much looming, but the lack of preparation time could actually work to England's advantage, engendering a greater team spirit and togetherness, as well as a determination to prove the doubters wrong. There are historical precedents for teams thrown together in less than ideal circumstances summoning up the resolve and cohesion necessary to prevail.
It is also gratifying that the position of England boss is to be occupied by somebody who desired the job for the right reasons, and sees it as the culmination of what he has been working towards throughout his career. This came through in this afternoon's press conference, as did the genuine affection and respect in which he his held.
I, and I expect many others, wish Roy Hodgson every success in his new role.
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
All The President's Men
I am mildly surprised that it has taken me this long to compose a blog post about this, one of my favourite movies, but as I recently watched it again in full, here goes!
For the uninitiated, All The President's Men, directed by Alan J Pakula, tells the story of the Washington Post's investigation into the Watergate scandal. It is based on the book by the two reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who are portrayed in the film by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman respectively.
This is less a political thriller than a detective story, told largely from the perspective of the newspaper and its staff. There are some fascinating sub-plots, dealing with the relationship between Woodward and Bernstein, and the power struggles and infighting within the editorial staff as the story assumes greater gravity.
As anyone with any knowledge of the Watergate case can testify, this is a very complex story, but the producers do a laudable job of distilling the bewildering quantity of information into digestible form, without dumbing things down.
One of the strengths of this movie is the manner in which the intricacies of the plot are unveiled creepingly and gradually, and carrying the viewer on the journey, allowing them to deduce the ramifications of each morsel of evidence which is uncovered. Any moves to clarify and explain ambiguities are done subtly and discreetly.
Clever and effective use is also made of lighting, sets and locations to help communicate the atmosphere of menace, fear and oppression surrounding the case and the investigation. Again, this is done with finesse and moderation, not drawing attention to itself, but seeping into the consciousness of the viewer.
Imagery and metaphor are employed sparingly and judiciously, almost to the point where they can pass by unnoticed. An example of this is the scene where Woodward and Bernstein are exiting the Library of Congress, and the reflection of the Capitol buildings is seen on the glass door just as Bernstein pushes it open somewhat disdainfully. Also, the part where the journalists emerge from the Department of Justice, at a point in the story where official collusion in the cover-up is becoming apparent. The camera shot (from a distance) shows the two men as tiny figures set against the monolithic edifice of this organ of the state, and thereby depicts the scale of the machinery ranged against them.
On a few occasions, key stages in the journalistic investigation are juxtaposed with major developments in the political arena. A few chronological liberties may have been taken there, but this is no major criticism, as it is well done and adds to the strength of the overall narrative.
The early stages of the film, where the first strands of evidence are amassed, could in other hands have been dull and prosaic, but here they are lent great power and impact, via a combination of acting, camera work and set design. The scenes where Woodward makes endless telephone enquiries are a case in point. He is surrounded by the general hubbub of the office, those people being oblivious of the import of what he is discovering. These scenes also serve to breezily condense into a dramatic form lots of data and detail which might otherwise have proved dry and stodgy.
Although I'm not sure whether the film outwardly sets out to analyse the relationship between Woodward and Bernstein in any great detail, this dynamic does bubble beneath the surface, and is actually one of the joys of the piece. At the outset, Woodward is seen to be eager, deferential, naive even, but as some of his illusions are shattered in the white-heat of the investigation, he becomes more hardened and jaded. In the early stages, Bernstein is portayed as more cynical and street-wise.
As the magnitude of the story becomes ever clearer, the two men are brought closer together, at least partly overcoming their differences and achieving a tolerable working relationship, reasoning that the momentous task at hand should transcend any petty squabbles.
One other sub-plot is the attitude of the paper's editorial staff, and the infighting which develops to gain control over the story. Not everyone on the paper is immediately convinced of the story's merits, but eventually the diligence of the young reporters, and the potential threat to the status of the newspaper have their effect. Jason Robards ably plays the role of Ben Bradlee.
On the subject of performances, the one delivered here by Robert Redford may be one of his most under-rated. He is able to evoke the subtle changes in the outlook and approach of his character quite convincingly. Hoffman has not always been my cup of tea, but he does a fair job of making his character appear more nonchalant and worldly-wise than Woodward early on.
As the investigation gathers pace, we are shown some of the novel methods employed by the reporters to obtain information. This is lightened by them sometimes being presented as amusing episodes. Examples of this are the visit by Bernstein to the District Attorney's office in Florida, and the visits to the houses of employees of the Committee to Re-Elect the President.
In addition, we see the contrasting methods used by the two reporters, from the facts-based stance of Woodward, and the gut-feeling sometimes favoured by Bernstein. It seems that as matters went on, each began to assume some elements of the other's approach, which were complementary.
Of course, many people remember this movie primarily for the role of "Deep Throat", Woodward's government source. The scenes involving Deep Throat are some of the most affecting in the whole movie, with the underground car park where the meetings took place providing a suitably eerie and shadowy backdrop. Initially, Deep Throat is reticent and dismissive, but as matters become graver he shows more despair and weariness, perhaps opening up when he realises the sincerity and resolve of the journalists.
Deep Throat's exhortation to "follow the money" sees the film move up a gear. Officialdom, even that which on the surface would normally be sympathetic, is uncooperative and obstructive. The scene where Woodward establishes the financial link between CREEP and the Watergate burglars is pivotal, Redford acutely projecting the anxiety and excitement of the moment. Nerves and euphoria are both palpable.
The latter stages of All The President's Men are quite bleak in places, as the paranoia escalates, and the tone and ambience grow darker.
The movie thankfully makes allowances for some powers of deduction among its audience. There is some exposition, naturally, but this is not excessive. There is intelligence, deftness, but also accessibility.
All The President's Men is not always mentioned in the same breath as the other classic American movies of the 1970s, but it should be.....
For the uninitiated, All The President's Men, directed by Alan J Pakula, tells the story of the Washington Post's investigation into the Watergate scandal. It is based on the book by the two reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who are portrayed in the film by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman respectively.
This is less a political thriller than a detective story, told largely from the perspective of the newspaper and its staff. There are some fascinating sub-plots, dealing with the relationship between Woodward and Bernstein, and the power struggles and infighting within the editorial staff as the story assumes greater gravity.
As anyone with any knowledge of the Watergate case can testify, this is a very complex story, but the producers do a laudable job of distilling the bewildering quantity of information into digestible form, without dumbing things down.
One of the strengths of this movie is the manner in which the intricacies of the plot are unveiled creepingly and gradually, and carrying the viewer on the journey, allowing them to deduce the ramifications of each morsel of evidence which is uncovered. Any moves to clarify and explain ambiguities are done subtly and discreetly.
Clever and effective use is also made of lighting, sets and locations to help communicate the atmosphere of menace, fear and oppression surrounding the case and the investigation. Again, this is done with finesse and moderation, not drawing attention to itself, but seeping into the consciousness of the viewer.
Imagery and metaphor are employed sparingly and judiciously, almost to the point where they can pass by unnoticed. An example of this is the scene where Woodward and Bernstein are exiting the Library of Congress, and the reflection of the Capitol buildings is seen on the glass door just as Bernstein pushes it open somewhat disdainfully. Also, the part where the journalists emerge from the Department of Justice, at a point in the story where official collusion in the cover-up is becoming apparent. The camera shot (from a distance) shows the two men as tiny figures set against the monolithic edifice of this organ of the state, and thereby depicts the scale of the machinery ranged against them.
On a few occasions, key stages in the journalistic investigation are juxtaposed with major developments in the political arena. A few chronological liberties may have been taken there, but this is no major criticism, as it is well done and adds to the strength of the overall narrative.
The early stages of the film, where the first strands of evidence are amassed, could in other hands have been dull and prosaic, but here they are lent great power and impact, via a combination of acting, camera work and set design. The scenes where Woodward makes endless telephone enquiries are a case in point. He is surrounded by the general hubbub of the office, those people being oblivious of the import of what he is discovering. These scenes also serve to breezily condense into a dramatic form lots of data and detail which might otherwise have proved dry and stodgy.
Although I'm not sure whether the film outwardly sets out to analyse the relationship between Woodward and Bernstein in any great detail, this dynamic does bubble beneath the surface, and is actually one of the joys of the piece. At the outset, Woodward is seen to be eager, deferential, naive even, but as some of his illusions are shattered in the white-heat of the investigation, he becomes more hardened and jaded. In the early stages, Bernstein is portayed as more cynical and street-wise.
As the magnitude of the story becomes ever clearer, the two men are brought closer together, at least partly overcoming their differences and achieving a tolerable working relationship, reasoning that the momentous task at hand should transcend any petty squabbles.
One other sub-plot is the attitude of the paper's editorial staff, and the infighting which develops to gain control over the story. Not everyone on the paper is immediately convinced of the story's merits, but eventually the diligence of the young reporters, and the potential threat to the status of the newspaper have their effect. Jason Robards ably plays the role of Ben Bradlee.
On the subject of performances, the one delivered here by Robert Redford may be one of his most under-rated. He is able to evoke the subtle changes in the outlook and approach of his character quite convincingly. Hoffman has not always been my cup of tea, but he does a fair job of making his character appear more nonchalant and worldly-wise than Woodward early on.
As the investigation gathers pace, we are shown some of the novel methods employed by the reporters to obtain information. This is lightened by them sometimes being presented as amusing episodes. Examples of this are the visit by Bernstein to the District Attorney's office in Florida, and the visits to the houses of employees of the Committee to Re-Elect the President.
In addition, we see the contrasting methods used by the two reporters, from the facts-based stance of Woodward, and the gut-feeling sometimes favoured by Bernstein. It seems that as matters went on, each began to assume some elements of the other's approach, which were complementary.
Of course, many people remember this movie primarily for the role of "Deep Throat", Woodward's government source. The scenes involving Deep Throat are some of the most affecting in the whole movie, with the underground car park where the meetings took place providing a suitably eerie and shadowy backdrop. Initially, Deep Throat is reticent and dismissive, but as matters become graver he shows more despair and weariness, perhaps opening up when he realises the sincerity and resolve of the journalists.
Deep Throat's exhortation to "follow the money" sees the film move up a gear. Officialdom, even that which on the surface would normally be sympathetic, is uncooperative and obstructive. The scene where Woodward establishes the financial link between CREEP and the Watergate burglars is pivotal, Redford acutely projecting the anxiety and excitement of the moment. Nerves and euphoria are both palpable.
The latter stages of All The President's Men are quite bleak in places, as the paranoia escalates, and the tone and ambience grow darker.
The movie thankfully makes allowances for some powers of deduction among its audience. There is some exposition, naturally, but this is not excessive. There is intelligence, deftness, but also accessibility.
All The President's Men is not always mentioned in the same breath as the other classic American movies of the 1970s, but it should be.....
Sunday, 22 April 2012
2012 Bahrain Grand Prix Review
Many of the column inches during the 2012 F1 season have centred on the perceived fall from grace of the Red Bull team. However, after today's impressive victory for Sebastian Vettel, they may be tempted to utter the time-honoured phrase "crisis, what crisis?". Vettel now sits atop the standings....
Despite a spirited challenge from Kimi Raikkonen's Lotus, this was a composed display by the reigning champion, building on his pole position. In addition, and significantly perhaps, the German overshadowed his team-mate Mark Webber for most of the weekend. Vettel's performance had that stamp of calm and authority that one expects from a true champion.
Another major talking point arising from the race was the continuing excellent form of the Lotus team. Right from the start of the season, their car has looked nimble, stable and fleet, and there is a lean and lithe feel about the team generally. The drivers are capitalising ably on the machine's responsiveness and zip. It is worth noting its straightline speed, too.
Even allowing for his credentials and pedigree, Romain Grosjean continues to be a revelation, confident and assertive, and far from over-awed in the illustrious company near the head of the field. This spur of competition is pushing Kimi Raikkonen along. The Finn looks perfectly at home on his F1 return, that fluid and pacey style very much to the fore. Even though he admitted afterwards that he had failed when presented with his one big opportunity to overtake Vettel, at least he was in a position to attempt that manoeuvre!
To say the least, McLaren had a frustrating and problematic race, with more sloppy pit-stops, and culminating in Jenson Button's mechanical problems. It would be surprising if the McLaren hierarchy allowed this situation, intolerable for such a polished outfit, to persist. Despite the car's potential, and the points already registered, the team has looked uncharacteristically ragged and untidy at times in 2012. Lewis Hamilton has suffered from all this, but has managed to amass a healthy tally of points.
Another topic which jumped out at me today was the one raised by Michael Schumacher about the extent to which tyres, and the requirement of the drivers to manage tham, is influencing the racing. I suspect that many fans would counter that the tyre situation is at least partly responsible for the close and exciting racing which we are witnessing, and that Schumacher's rather indignant remarks smack of sour grapes.
From a purist's point of view, there would be concern if it were felt that the outcome of every single Grand Prix was being determined largely by tyre wear, distorting the efforts of teams and drivers, and discrediting the sport. However, I don't think that we have reached that stage yet, and the time for a more balanced judgement on this will come later in the season. It will be interesting to see how many other drivers publicly give vent to their feelings about the burdens being imposed on them by tyre concerns.
Whatever the merits of his argument, it is interesting to see Schumacher speaking out like this. In the past, it can be argued that he did not always speak his mind as readily as would be expected from the sport's leading personality. Today's candid comments looked to me like those of an elder statesman figure, not constrained by some of the pressures of his earlier career, and not afraid to look at the big picture, and be outspoken about matters which genuinely perturb him.
The other Mercedes driver had an adventurous race today, being involved in a couple of contentious incidents. Over-confidence in the wake of China, or frustration at not being in a position to live up to expectations, post-Shanghai?
It seems that Ferrari were back in a position more representative of their car's potential, having to scrap for every position. Both drivers tried manfully, and the spirit shown by Felipe Massa will have provided at least some encouragement.
A word of praise also for Paul di Resta, who achieved a fine result, based on a courageous strategy and some intelligent racing. His drive was reminiscent of many of those which he delivered in 2011.
A crucial period in the season now awaits us. A three week break before Barcelona, and interestingly, a testing session at Mugello. Red Bull may feel that they have something to build on now, and some pundits are pointing to Catalunya as a "Red Bull track". In the past, the dawn of the European season has sometimes seen a sea change in form, but this time there appear to be too many variables and imponderables in place.
Whatever happens, it looks like being interesting....
Despite a spirited challenge from Kimi Raikkonen's Lotus, this was a composed display by the reigning champion, building on his pole position. In addition, and significantly perhaps, the German overshadowed his team-mate Mark Webber for most of the weekend. Vettel's performance had that stamp of calm and authority that one expects from a true champion.
Another major talking point arising from the race was the continuing excellent form of the Lotus team. Right from the start of the season, their car has looked nimble, stable and fleet, and there is a lean and lithe feel about the team generally. The drivers are capitalising ably on the machine's responsiveness and zip. It is worth noting its straightline speed, too.
Even allowing for his credentials and pedigree, Romain Grosjean continues to be a revelation, confident and assertive, and far from over-awed in the illustrious company near the head of the field. This spur of competition is pushing Kimi Raikkonen along. The Finn looks perfectly at home on his F1 return, that fluid and pacey style very much to the fore. Even though he admitted afterwards that he had failed when presented with his one big opportunity to overtake Vettel, at least he was in a position to attempt that manoeuvre!
To say the least, McLaren had a frustrating and problematic race, with more sloppy pit-stops, and culminating in Jenson Button's mechanical problems. It would be surprising if the McLaren hierarchy allowed this situation, intolerable for such a polished outfit, to persist. Despite the car's potential, and the points already registered, the team has looked uncharacteristically ragged and untidy at times in 2012. Lewis Hamilton has suffered from all this, but has managed to amass a healthy tally of points.
Another topic which jumped out at me today was the one raised by Michael Schumacher about the extent to which tyres, and the requirement of the drivers to manage tham, is influencing the racing. I suspect that many fans would counter that the tyre situation is at least partly responsible for the close and exciting racing which we are witnessing, and that Schumacher's rather indignant remarks smack of sour grapes.
From a purist's point of view, there would be concern if it were felt that the outcome of every single Grand Prix was being determined largely by tyre wear, distorting the efforts of teams and drivers, and discrediting the sport. However, I don't think that we have reached that stage yet, and the time for a more balanced judgement on this will come later in the season. It will be interesting to see how many other drivers publicly give vent to their feelings about the burdens being imposed on them by tyre concerns.
Whatever the merits of his argument, it is interesting to see Schumacher speaking out like this. In the past, it can be argued that he did not always speak his mind as readily as would be expected from the sport's leading personality. Today's candid comments looked to me like those of an elder statesman figure, not constrained by some of the pressures of his earlier career, and not afraid to look at the big picture, and be outspoken about matters which genuinely perturb him.
The other Mercedes driver had an adventurous race today, being involved in a couple of contentious incidents. Over-confidence in the wake of China, or frustration at not being in a position to live up to expectations, post-Shanghai?
It seems that Ferrari were back in a position more representative of their car's potential, having to scrap for every position. Both drivers tried manfully, and the spirit shown by Felipe Massa will have provided at least some encouragement.
A word of praise also for Paul di Resta, who achieved a fine result, based on a courageous strategy and some intelligent racing. His drive was reminiscent of many of those which he delivered in 2011.
A crucial period in the season now awaits us. A three week break before Barcelona, and interestingly, a testing session at Mugello. Red Bull may feel that they have something to build on now, and some pundits are pointing to Catalunya as a "Red Bull track". In the past, the dawn of the European season has sometimes seen a sea change in form, but this time there appear to be too many variables and imponderables in place.
Whatever happens, it looks like being interesting....
Friday, 20 April 2012
Levon Helm
I was saddened this morning to learn of the death of Levon Helm, drummer and vocalist with The Band, the acclaimed and influential American/Canadian rock group of the 1960s and 70s.
Levon's distinctive voice and drumming style played a crucial role in the special appeal of The Band. He provided much of the essential grit and soul, which together with other ingredients, made their music so captivating and unique. As the lone American in a group consisting mostly of Canadians, this input was regarded as very important.
Not only did Levon supply some memorable lead vocals to the Band, but he also played an integral part, with Richard Manuel and Rick Danko, in the gloriously ragged and endearing harmonies which suffused their early albums.
His drumming has I think been somewhat overlooked in comparison, and I think that he was one of those instrumentalists whose personality and enjoyment is transmitted and conveyed directly through his playing. This was also true of his singing.
Levon Helm will be greatly missed.
Levon's distinctive voice and drumming style played a crucial role in the special appeal of The Band. He provided much of the essential grit and soul, which together with other ingredients, made their music so captivating and unique. As the lone American in a group consisting mostly of Canadians, this input was regarded as very important.
Not only did Levon supply some memorable lead vocals to the Band, but he also played an integral part, with Richard Manuel and Rick Danko, in the gloriously ragged and endearing harmonies which suffused their early albums.
His drumming has I think been somewhat overlooked in comparison, and I think that he was one of those instrumentalists whose personality and enjoyment is transmitted and conveyed directly through his playing. This was also true of his singing.
Levon Helm will be greatly missed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)