Adam Cooper F1

Felipe Massa returns to the Hungaoring today a little over a year after he left the circuit in a medical helicopter after his qualifying crash.

This week he’s also been making a point of visiting some of the medical staff who helped him last year.

“I think it’s a very special place, because of what happened with me there last year,” he explained at Hockenheim last week. “So I’m really looking forward to going back there for the race weekend. But also for good personal feelings, to go back to the hospital, to see the people that took good care of me, who did a good job. So I’m really looking forward to going there and saying hello to everybody, and making a nice conversation, a nice feeling with them.”

He admitted it would be an empotional experience: “Because it’s an important part of my life. What happened last year was a very big thing on my life, so it is very, very special. Talking about the life point of view.”

 Meanwhile after his frustration in Germany Massa has to now prove his point on the track by outpacing his team mate. He has gone well in Hungary in the past – he was quick before the crash last year – and it will be fascinating to see if he can bounce back.

“I think in the races that we have the very hard tyres I was performing much worse than I can, you know, because I was never able to make the tyres work. When we had the soft tyres I was reasonably happy.

“For sure I was trying deinitely to change my driving style, because the driving style makes the tyres hotter, or colder, it’s true. I am a driver that needs a lot the front grip on the car, I prefer a better front grip. Even if I have a bit of oversteer and the front is working, you can work to improve the rear.

“But anyway that’s the way I used to drive until now, and this year with the narrower tyres, very hard tyres, it’s very difficult for me. Many people like to talk just about me, but many, many drivers are having similar problems this year, I’m not the only one. But people always talk about me, so that’s it.”

For more on Felipe Massa and the Hockenheim controversy check the www.autosport.com features section later today.

Wealthy Texan Red McCombs is the main investor behind the Austin F1 project.

Born in 1927, Billy Joe ‘Red’ McCombs made his fortune in car dealerships and was a founder of Clear Channel Communications. He is ranked by Forbes Magazine as one of the 400 richest Americans. He is heavily involved in sports and especially basketball, and used to own the San Antonio Spurs, Denver Nuggets and Minnesota Vikings teams. The business school at the University of Texas in Austin is named after him thanks to a $50m donation.

He also owns real estate company Koontz-McCombs and McCoombs Energy. As already reported here, there is a push to use the new track to help develop alternative fuels, which partly explains his interest.

McCombs admitted he knew nothing about F1 before the project started. He says Bernie Ecclestone asked him this morning if the track will be ready by 2012, and he replied, “Remember, we are talking about Texas, we are not talking about anywhere else…”

McCombs said: “Competition is what drives me, whatever the sport is, even if it’s a spelling bee. I’m for man against man.” He also made it clear that “we do intend for it to be a profitable venture.” He added that henceforth he wants to call Austin “Speed City”…

“Bringing Formula 1 back to the United States represents the opportunity of a lifetime and one that any city in the world would want,” said McCombs in a statement. “The size and scope of an F1 event is comparable to hosting a Super Bowl and will bring substantial economic benefit to Austin, San Antonio and the entire State of Texas.

“We know Tavo has a clear vision for developing Formula 1 into a major event with year-round opportunities. Over the past few years, he has built a solid business foundation and has assembled a great team – one we are proud to be part of. We are ready to roll-up our sleeves and work alongside Tavo to make this project a huge success.”

Hellmund added: “This project has been a tremendous undertaking. But for at least the next decade, Texas will host a global sporting event on an annual basis in a new world-class multipurpose facility. Knowing that our hard work is being rewarded and that my dream is becoming a reality is extremely gratifying. It is a great honor to have Red McCombs and McCombs Partners as our primary investor and partner. Red’s success in business and the professional sports arena is legendary. Working together as a team and under Red’s direction, we will ensure that this project will make all Texans very proud and will benefit our great State.”

Also involved are Prophet Capital Management, an Austin-based investment company, and Hellmund’s close friend, former two-wheel star Kevin Schwantz.

The Austin GP track is to be built on land originally earmarked for a residential development called Wandering Creek.

It is a 900 acre site near Elroy, to the east of Highway 131. The Statesman newspaper received confirmation from Bobby Epstein, an investor in Wandering Creek.

“I’m elated and hope this all comes to fruition,” said Epstein. “I’m highly optimistic that all the moving parts will come together” in time for the inaugural Austin race in 2012.

“I’m really excited about it, more as a Texan and an Austinite than a racing fan. It would really make a statement for Austin. I think it’s really going to be a big event for us.”

The paper quotes a local residents’ association respresentative, Cathy Olive, as saying: “We all feel like it would be the lesser of two evils. Are we excited about it? No. But it’s better than 2,000 teeny-tiny tract houses.”

More news later…

Red Bull Racing had not ruled out making a protest about the Ferrari team orders situation in Germany had the FIA stewards not take action of their own.

In fact sources confirm that the team got on the radio to race control soon after the Ferrari drivers swapped places, in order to register its concern.

“It was so blatantly obvious what they’ve done,” team boss Christian Horner told this blog. “They manipulated the outcome of the race by telling one car to effectively slow down, and then apologise to him. The FIA have all the facts, they know the rules better than anyone else.

“The regulation was designed to avoid exactly what we saw, and that has been our understanding of the rules since we joined F1. What was done was very blatant and a great shame for all the fans and spectators and viewers around the world, to see a race handed from one driver to another.”

In some people’s eyes Horner has set himself up for criticism, given recent events within his team. However, the infamous Turkey collision occurred when the RBR drivers were racing each other, despite obvious concerns on the pit wall about the looming presence of the McLarens. Since then RBR has insisted that the drivers can race, and indeed Horner has been saying that all season.

“We tried to do the right thing. It’s part of the Red Bull ethics to allow our drivers to race, and that’s what we’ve done, as I believe McLaren allow their drivers to do likewise. That was a very clear team instruction today that handed the race win from one driver to another. It’s wrong that the drivers weren’t allowed to compete with each other.

“Felipe wasn’t that far behind in the points, it’s not like he was out of the championship. It guarantees that he’s not allowed to beat Fernando Alonso this year. They obviously tried to give the lead to Fernando at the first pit stop, because it made no sense to give him the first stop, other than to try and put him ahead of Massa. That obviously didn’t work for them, so they moved it on track. And that is wrong.

“It’s so disappointing for the fans more than anything that they didn’t get to see Massa, who’d driven a good race, race against Fernando. It was a great shame.

“I never heard of a strategy that says out of Turn 6 slow down and then apologise to your driver…”

Mark Webber says he will bounce back in Hungary after a low-key run to sixth place in Germany. The result left the Aussie equal on points with team mate Sebastian Vettel, but his superior win record means that he is technically ahead – which will be handy if the team has to make another call on who gets new parts!

Webber lost a place to Lewis Hamilton at the start, and later lost out at the stops to Jenson Button. In the end dropping back wasn’t such a problem, as he had to nurse the car to the flag, and he was happy to at least bag eight points for sixth place.

“I was actually enjoying the first part of the race, a good little scrap with Lewis,” said Webber. “He didn’t look so comfortable on the option, and I was getting held up. I thought we’d take the race to the pit stops. I thought he might come in with me, but he stayed out a lap longer. The guys did a good job in the pit stop but we came out in traffic, which was a little bit of a gamble to try and jump Lewis. So we lost obviously a bit of track to him, and obviously Jenson tried a different strategy and went longer so he jumped me as well.

“Then after the race turned in a different way because we had an oil consumption problem, so we had to get the car to the end. I was watching the race on the big screens and seeing what was happening further down the road. Unfortunately I wasn’t in it today, but I’ll be back.

“Sixth in the old days was a disaster, but these days you still get a few points. It’s competitive at the front, but that’s how it should be.”

Fortunately the team expects to be able to use the Hockenheim engine again, despite the problem.

“He had an oil issue that he managed very, very well,” Christian Horner told this blog. “It was important points for him. Renault managed the problem throughout the race and did a good job, because that engine has further to go. It was its second race, so it still has a bit of mileage to do on it.

“But there was no damage, it was just a question of ensuring that it didn’t put any unnecessary heat or friction into the engine. It was always going to be very difficult for him to pass Jenson with their straightline speed advantage, we took a prudent approach to say let’s get the points, finish the race, and make sure it’s still in the allocation.”

Meanwhile Sebastian Vettel never quite had the pace with which to challenge the Ferraris, although he improved his championship position relative to the McLaren drivers.

“Sebastian was quicker as the fuel came out of the car. But it looked like he might have picked up a little bit of damage passing a backmarker at the hairpin when they all got a bit mixed up. It was close, and if he had made the start, I think he would have been fine.

“He’s closer to the McLarens and we took another point out of them in the constructors’. The race was dictated at the start today. He had a fantastic pit stop, a really quick stop, but the first 500m dictated the outcome of our race. But unfortunately not Felipe Massa’s!”

Austin promoter Tavo Hellmund is set to reveal details of the venue for the 2012 US GP later today.

There has been much speculation in the Texan media as to the intended site of the Tilke-built track, and the lack of hard information until now has led to some scepticism about the strength of Hellmund’s plans. As previously reported here the circuit will be on a hilly site to the east of the city, not far from the airport, and will have an overview of downtown.

Hellmund recently led a delegation on a visit to the British GP, where it was clear that he has the full support of Bernie Ecclestone, despite suggestions in the paddock that the project might not happen.

“I think part of the problem is that because we are being very careful of releasing details, from the business perspective not from any other reason, is the fact that people are left asking,” Hellmund told me at Silverstone. “When you actually have the deal done, it doesn’t bother you. I could care less what people say, we’re getting the deal done.

“I think probably we’re going to release the land site, so everyone knows where it is. To stop the speculation, we’re going to need to do that. We’ll also introduce some of our key players from the communications side, from an investors’ side, so that the public – who seem to be so curious – understand this is really a world class group that’s been put together, with experience form the NFL and NBA.”

He said he had a good reason to withhold track details until now: “It’s not because we don’t want to, but because the FIA and FOM need to know the layout as well.”

Ferrari boss Luca di Montezeimolo has made it clear that he has no problem with what the team did in Hockenheim, and says that Felipe Massa has to understand that the interests of the team come first.

“I am very happy for all our fans who finally, yesterday, saw two Ferraris lead from start to finish as they dominated the race,” said di Montezemolo on Ferrari’s website. “The result is down to the efforts of all our people, who never give up. Now we have to continue working like this, to improve the car so that is competitive at all the circuits we will encounter.

“Alonso and Massa also did very well, giving their all throughout the weekend. The polemics are of no interest to me. I simply reaffirm what I have always maintained, which is that our drivers are very well aware, and it is something they have to stick to, that if one races for Ferrari, then the interests of the team come before those of the individual.

“In any case, these things have happened since the days of Nuvolari and I experienced it myself when I was Sporting Director, in the days of Niki Lauda and not just then… Therefore enough of this hypocrisy, even if I can well believe that some people might well have liked to see our two drivers eliminate one another, but that is definitely not the case for me or indeed for our fans.”

Newcomers to this blog might not know that when I started it earlier this year I promised to delve into my old PCs and find interesting stories that, where possible, had some relevance to today. Yesterday’s race in Hockenheim created such a feeling of déjà vu that I just had to dig out something on Austria 2002, so here is what Ross Brawn had to say after that race just as the scale of the negative reaction was just sinking in.  I can remember a few of us sitting with Ross, and when somebody asked him what the forecast had been, I chipped in with ‘storm clouds gathering!’ I guess you had to be there…

Anyway, his comments make for fascinating reading today, and the parallels with the line that Stefano Domenicali – who was Ferrari team manager in 2002 – took yesterday are remarkable. Bear in mind however that at the time, team orders had not been banned, so Ross was completely open about what had transpired. Intriguingly I seem to recall that some of the toughest questions here were asked by the same guy who gave Fernando a hard time in Hockenheim…

Ross Brawn Q&A: A1-Ring, May 12th, 2002

Q: You said at the launch in Maranello that is Rubens was in the lead you would not ask Michael to go past him. What’s changed your mind in the six races since the launch?

“The situation today was that Michael had 44 points and Rubens had six. If they were both fighting for the championship on an equal points basis we wouldn’t have made the decision we made today. And Rubens understands that. I have no problem with the decision we made today, and nothing’s changed it.”

Q: One of your fellow technical directors described it as cynical, possibly bordering on fraudulent…

“I don’t really want to comment on other people’s opinion. We controlled the race today. We told the drivers we didn’t want them racing, we told the drivers they had to cut the engine revs, we told the drivers they had to look after the brakes, we told the drivers not to take any risks with backmarkers. That’s the nature of F1, that’s the nature of the business we’re in. When you make that decision then you going to make the decision to control the race thereafter. You can’t tell your drivers not to race, and then not be prepared to make the decisions that come after that. Michael may come back and say why wasn’t I allowed to race? We don’t want to damage the equipment, we want to give ourselves the best chance of winning the drivers’ championship. I understand it’s something which is going to raise a lot of opinion, but we have to do what we feel is right.”

Q: Do you think that the sport has been damaged?

“There’s obviously been a lot of reaction. We all have to make decisions, we all have to make decisions on what’s best for Ferrari. I can’t really answer that question really. If we are able to reach a situation where mathematically we’ve won the championship, then it will be interesting to see. But we had that for five races last year and I don’t think it made any difference.”

Q: Has Michael actually communicated to you that he thinks it’s wrong?

“No, Michael doesn’t think it’s wrong. Michael likes Rubens a lot, and he doesn’t like Rubens to have a lost a race and for him to have gained one, and it’s natural for him to feel that way. But he also understands why we do it, because he was there through those years when we lost the championship at the last race. Michael didn’t ask for it, Michael didn’t particularly enjoy it, but it’s what we feel is correct to maximise our chances for the drivers’ and the constructors.”

Q: What’s upset a lot of people is the feeling that you are so far ahead this year…

“I can understand that, but people are making judgements about the championship before it’s won, and we’re not making those judgements. Michael broke his leg in ’98 [actually 1999]. Anything can happen in a championship, so we just don’t take the slightest chance. We don’t get conceited enough to say we’ve got such an advantage we don’t need to follow our policy today. It’s really as simple as that.”

Q: When Michael broke his leg and Eddie lost the championship at the last race, Eddie had already given away points early in the season…

“That’s true, and obviously if we’d known Michael was going to break his leg, we wouldn’t have done that. But I don’t think any of us knew that! The drivers have a fair chance until the points where one clear has a much stronger chance of winning the championship. They both get exactly the same equipment, they both get good support from all the team, and when one starts to assert an advantage, then we give our support to that driver. Too many championships have been lost in the past when teams haven’t given that support to their driver. We don’t operate like that.”

Q: Does it go against the grain for you as a racer?

“Those decisions are very difficult. It’s difficult for all of us. As I say we sat there in Suzuka [‘98-‘99], we sat there in Jerez [‘97], and wondered what decisions we could have made during the year that could have avoided the situation we had then. It’s both sides.”

Q: At what point was the decision actually taken and conveyed to the drivers?

“The decision was there all weekend. Rubens knows the situation. Rubens has just signed a new contract, and he was very aware of the situation. If Rubens starts 2003 and is 44 points against six after five races, he will get to take race wins in the same fashion. So Rubens knows the circumstances. Even before the weekend it was a taken.”

Q: Did you actually tell him?

“I speak to the race drivers during the race, so I spoke to Rubens and explained the situation. He was very professional about it.”

Q: At what point did you tell him?

“It was after the second pit stops. Once the second pit stops had been finished, and we saw the way the race was, I spoke to him and I explained what we wanted to do. It would have been very to have orchestrated some came in the pit stops, and make it look different, but we didn’t want to operate like that.”

Q: When was Michael made aware of it?

“After I spoke to Rubens and we discussed it then I informed Michael what the situation was. But I’d already told both drivers to back off and take it easy. Once we’d got through the second pit stops we knew what the situation was. It was just a question of looking after the equipment.”

Q: Was there a reluctance from Michael when the order came through?

“We didn’t get into detail, but I’m sure he doesn’t feel entirely comfortable about it. It’s natural. But Michael doesn’t run the team, and it’s not his decision.”

Q: Will there be the same decision if there was a similar situation in Monaco?

“Of course, yes. Until mathematically the championship is sorted either way, that decision could be repeated.”

Q: Why do you run two drivers?

“To win the constructors’ championship.”

Q: But Ferrari’s preference is the drivers?

“We don’t have a preference. Today’s decision kept the constructors’ championship exactly the same, and strengthened our position in the drivers. It wasn’t as though we gave away points in one championship against the other. It didn’t make any difference in the constructors’ position, and strengthened our drivers position. It seemed highly logical.”

Q: Can you see how this damages the legend of Michael Schumacher?

“Not really, no. Michael had nothing to do with it.”

Q: But when everybody writes the history of Michael Schumacher’s fifth championship, it won’t be that he’s the best driver, there will always be that paragraph the he was given that race in Austria…

“That’s the history of F1. That’s happened many times. I don’t think that’s held against the drivers. We all remember Ronnie Peterson and Mario Andretti [in 1978]. That’s the earliest one I remember. It goes back years, and that’s the nature of motor racing. It doesn’t get held against the driver.”

Q: You’re not expecting any ramifications from this?

“I don’t see why. The FIA made their position clear two years ago, and they see F1 as a team sport.”

Q: What about ramifications from the President of Ferrari?

“Nobody appreciates the reaction, but he understands that he’s part of the decision making process. Whilst he won’t appreciate the reaction, he also wouldn’t appreciate the reaction if we lost the championship at the end of the year.”

Q: Until the championship is won, Michael will be allowed to win every race?

“If the situation is there, yes. It’s no different to today. If that situation exists we will make that same decision…”

I watched the opening stages of the German GP from near the pit entry and it was like the M25 in rush hour at the end of the first lap as both Toro Rossos and both Force Indias came rushing in.

Incredibly the team mates had in each case contrived to hit each other, and not surprisingly, they had different views of what had happened. However the damage to the STRs gave a pretty clear indication of just who had hit who…

What was that about team orders?

The Hockenheim team orders saga was far from over on Sunday, since the World Motor Sport Council has the power to change the result of the German GP.

Thus Fernando Alonso could yet lose his victory, and if that happens, Rob Smedley’s on-air apology to his driver will be the damning evidence.

In essence the stewards of the meeting could not levy a financial penalty greater than $100,000 on the day, and they preferred not to take the responsibility of a more controversial decision that changed the result in any way. However, in referring the matter to the WMSC they are in effect indicating that they believe there should be a much greater penalty.

That could involve a bigger fine, a change to the results (even though they were declared official on Sunday night), and/or possibly a form of suspended sentence, such a race ban for the team should it be found guilty of a similar offence. An WMSC hearing would also send out a signal to all the other teams.

Ferrari’s argument is obviously that it did not implement team orders, and that the team just gave Felipe Massa information of which he acted of his own accord. The debate will perhaps come to the fact that what is the difference between a driver being told to cede a place in a specific instance, or being party to a standard arrangement to the effect that when told the other driver is faster, he is expected to make the decision to move over.

One Ferrari man told me last night that Felipe understands the rules and if he doesn’t like it he can leave, just as someone else – Rubens Barrichello – did  a few years ago. He pointed out that just as Massa had helped Raikkonen in 2007 so Kimi had helped Felipe in 2008.

Both those incidents of course occurred in the last or next to last races of the season. When the team order rule was introduced by Max Mosley it was made clear that it would not apply in that situation, and everyone has always understood that. The whole point was to stop this sort of thing happening in the middle of the year. Massa was (and is) still in the title fight, albeit only mathematically.

In essence the evidence the radio messages that the viewing public at home also heard, although there was apparently some earlier traffic on the same subject that was not broadcast.

Rob Smedley initially told Massa, “Fernando is faster than you, can you confirm that you understand that message?”

Everyone in the paddock and watching at home had a pretty good idea of what those words implied, but Ferrari’s argument is that there nothing sinister behind them.

The big problem is that after the pass was made Smedley said, “Good lad, well done, sorry.”

With Rob saying that, and Felipe making his ceding of the lead oh so obvious (as Rubens did in Austria 2002), the pair have in effect dropped Ferrari in it. 

That apology clearly caught the attention of the stewards, and it’s going to be a key part of the investigation by the World Motor Sport Council. Indeed Smedley was called to see the stewards, along with the drivers, in order to explain what he meant when he apologised. We can guess that the only thing he could have told them that he was apologising for not providing a faster car…

One interesting aspect to the affair is that as far as I could tell, neither Alonso nor Stefano Domenicali majored on the fact that Vettel was not far behind –and that Massa in effect should have either got a move on or let Fernando past – by way of justification. It’ll be interesting if they try to use that now.

What happens next is the fascinating question, because in essence it is the role of FIA President Jean Todt to decide how and when the WMSC will deal with the matter. The next scheduled meeting in Como in early September, just before the Italian GP.

Clearly there will be some urgency to get it dealt with earlier, but it could prove hard for Todt to convene the WMSC in the August break when its various members will inevitably be on holiday. However he has already gained something of a reputation for wanting to resolve things quickly.

This is something of a step into the unknown for the Frenchman, as this is the first big F1 scandal to land in his lap, whereas such events had become a matter of routine for his predecessor Max Mosley.

Then of course there is the complication of his past involvement with Ferrari, his specific involvement in team orders that led to the implementation of Article 39.1 in the first place, and of course his personal relationship with Massa, who was first brought into the team by Todt.

He’s going to have to walk a tightrope as this affair unfolds. It’s going to be very hard for him to be seen as impartial, however honourable his intentions.

Earlier this year Todt lost his rag with me after I’d queried him at a press conference over the Stefan GP affair, based on the fact that his son Nicolas managed a driver who had the chance of being test driver for the team.

He didn’t like the suggestion that he had been influenced in any way by having an inside track on what was going on, even though I had actually made the point in print that he’d made the correct call in not allowing the team in.

Understandably he’s ultra sensitive to such scenarios, but given the many connections that he’s made during his long career, and his son’s own high profile involvement, it was inevitable that there would be perceived conflicts of interest.

Todt has made it clear that he will not play the sort of “hands-on” role that Mosley used to play, and once WMSC proceedings start, he will take a step back. But the fact is he is in the loop. Indeed he was apparently a visitor to the stewards’ room in Bahrain, Monaco and Silverstone this year, presumably having a good look at what was going on. Intriguingly the last two races also featured controversial incidents in which he took an interest.

The other fascinating aspect to all this is that it comes on the back of the safety car saga in Valencia and the drive through penalty that Alonso received in Silverstone. Ferrari made its displeasure with decisions in race control only too clear, and now for a third race in a row Fernando and the team have found themselves in the middle of controversy.

After perhaps saying too much in Valencia, Alonso has since tried to avoid stirring up trouble by blandly repeating a mantra along the lines of “the stewards are always right.”

I wonder if he really believes that today…