In the end, the race was so long that I really could not manage to write a report afterwards. It's back to post-race talking points for me!
And there were plenty of them. To begin with, many are saying that the race should have been canceled, weather conditions were so atrocious. But that ignores F1's stated policy of "the show must go on" - even if it means an entire race run behind the pace car, servitude to the great god television means that cancelation is out of the question.
We have no-one to blame but ourselves for this attitude. It is older than Bernie's reign so, for once, we can't blame him; instead we must look to our belief that wet races are the best because they mix up the order and give the really skillful drivers a better chance. On Saturday, everyone was hoping for a wet race to break up the procession we've come to expect this year - we can't turn around now and say they shouldn't have raced.
So the race was going to be run whatever happened, safe or unsafe, with or without helicopter, whether or not the drivers could see (they always say they can't see in wet races anyway - the only way to avoid that is to stop racing in the wet at all and how many of us want that?). And let's face it, that was one entertaining race.
The matter of Ferrari starting on intermediates when the race stewards had issued instructions that all cars should be on full wets was a classic case of a gamble that did not pay off. No doubt the idea was that a dry line would appear and then Kimi and Felipe would have had an enormous advantage as a result. It was a very optimistic strategy, however, and meant that Ferrari ruined their drivers' chances of winning; somehow I feel that it would not have happened had Ross Brawn been there.
As to whether the team were informed in time of the stewards' decision, well, fair enough, I'll believe that somehow the message reached everyone, including the TV commentators, before the start of the race but not Ferrari. They paid for the error in having to change to full wets anyway, but I wonder if the excuse would have been accepted had it come from any other team.
The race also raised a question regarding the new policy of having tarmac run-off areas, rather than gravel traps. Almost everyone had an off at one time or another but very few paid the price. They just drove back on again.
Now, that's all very well from the safety point of view but there were a couple of incidents that highlighted the unfairness from a racing point of view. Once again, Ferrari provide a good example of the inconsistency of the rules in this area. Massa was handed a drive-through penalty for having passed Heidfeld by going off the circuit during the safety car period. In the circumstances, I thought that was a bit harsh and that an instruction to him to let Heidfeld through would have been sufficient.
But much later, during the Massa/Kubica battle on the final lap, Massa passed by going off the circuit and being able to accelerate earlier than Kubica as a result. Nothing was said about the legality of the move but I think there is a case for extending the "cutting the chicane" rule to cover these new run-offs. The wider line gave Massa a clear advantage in the race to the line, yet it was obtained off the track; how can that be allowed? If it remains legal, we will see the limits of the circuit extending into the run-off areas, rather as Mansell invented a new line through la Source hairpin at Spa one year (it worked well enough to become standard practice in following years, eventually being incorporated into the circuit).
It is quite clear that the new run-offs can provide an unfair advantage. They need to be retained for safety reasons but it seems to me that a driver should never benefit from what is, essentially, a mistake. And the solution is quite simple: the rule should be that any driver having to use a run-off area must rejoin the circuit at the point at which he left it. End of problem.
There were so many other points of discussion that I must leave them for another day. Instead, I want to give the race winner his due; Lewis Hamilton drove an impeccable race in extremely difficult conditions, his one spin was the result of a tap from Kubica, and we really should stop calling him a rookie. Whether we like him as a person or not, he has done enough this season to thoroughly deserve to be champion. I would still like the improbable to happen and Kimi come through at the last, but the reality is that Hamilton has little to do but finish the final two races to win the title. At Fuji he showed that he is worthy of it.
And there were plenty of them. To begin with, many are saying that the race should have been canceled, weather conditions were so atrocious. But that ignores F1's stated policy of "the show must go on" - even if it means an entire race run behind the pace car, servitude to the great god television means that cancelation is out of the question.
We have no-one to blame but ourselves for this attitude. It is older than Bernie's reign so, for once, we can't blame him; instead we must look to our belief that wet races are the best because they mix up the order and give the really skillful drivers a better chance. On Saturday, everyone was hoping for a wet race to break up the procession we've come to expect this year - we can't turn around now and say they shouldn't have raced.
So the race was going to be run whatever happened, safe or unsafe, with or without helicopter, whether or not the drivers could see (they always say they can't see in wet races anyway - the only way to avoid that is to stop racing in the wet at all and how many of us want that?). And let's face it, that was one entertaining race.
The matter of Ferrari starting on intermediates when the race stewards had issued instructions that all cars should be on full wets was a classic case of a gamble that did not pay off. No doubt the idea was that a dry line would appear and then Kimi and Felipe would have had an enormous advantage as a result. It was a very optimistic strategy, however, and meant that Ferrari ruined their drivers' chances of winning; somehow I feel that it would not have happened had Ross Brawn been there.
As to whether the team were informed in time of the stewards' decision, well, fair enough, I'll believe that somehow the message reached everyone, including the TV commentators, before the start of the race but not Ferrari. They paid for the error in having to change to full wets anyway, but I wonder if the excuse would have been accepted had it come from any other team.
The race also raised a question regarding the new policy of having tarmac run-off areas, rather than gravel traps. Almost everyone had an off at one time or another but very few paid the price. They just drove back on again.
Now, that's all very well from the safety point of view but there were a couple of incidents that highlighted the unfairness from a racing point of view. Once again, Ferrari provide a good example of the inconsistency of the rules in this area. Massa was handed a drive-through penalty for having passed Heidfeld by going off the circuit during the safety car period. In the circumstances, I thought that was a bit harsh and that an instruction to him to let Heidfeld through would have been sufficient.
But much later, during the Massa/Kubica battle on the final lap, Massa passed by going off the circuit and being able to accelerate earlier than Kubica as a result. Nothing was said about the legality of the move but I think there is a case for extending the "cutting the chicane" rule to cover these new run-offs. The wider line gave Massa a clear advantage in the race to the line, yet it was obtained off the track; how can that be allowed? If it remains legal, we will see the limits of the circuit extending into the run-off areas, rather as Mansell invented a new line through la Source hairpin at Spa one year (it worked well enough to become standard practice in following years, eventually being incorporated into the circuit).
It is quite clear that the new run-offs can provide an unfair advantage. They need to be retained for safety reasons but it seems to me that a driver should never benefit from what is, essentially, a mistake. And the solution is quite simple: the rule should be that any driver having to use a run-off area must rejoin the circuit at the point at which he left it. End of problem.
There were so many other points of discussion that I must leave them for another day. Instead, I want to give the race winner his due; Lewis Hamilton drove an impeccable race in extremely difficult conditions, his one spin was the result of a tap from Kubica, and we really should stop calling him a rookie. Whether we like him as a person or not, he has done enough this season to thoroughly deserve to be champion. I would still like the improbable to happen and Kimi come through at the last, but the reality is that Hamilton has little to do but finish the final two races to win the title. At Fuji he showed that he is worthy of it.