While Michael Schumacher was setting the speculators into a frenzy by setting fastest laps in Barcelona testing, Renault's Bob Bell was having a quiet moan about the standard ECU the teams will have to use in 2008. It does seem a little unfair that the 2006 champions have had to put up with two seasons in a row of starting off at a disadvantage to other teams.
This year it was the switch to Bridgestone tires that effectively put Renault out of contention. So closely had they worked with Michelin, designing their cars around the company's products, that they were bound to have more trouble than most in adjusting to completely new rubber. And now the ECU comes along to complicate their preparations for 2008.
Naturally, since it no longer makes provision for traction control systems, the ECU is simpler than the Renault technicians are used to but it seems that its implementation is also a good deal different from their previous Marelli-designed system. Bell points out that the time devoted to integrating the ECU with their car is time lost in other areas.
Most of the teams are going to have similar problems, as they did with Bridgestones, but this time it will be McLaren that has a head start, since it was their company that designed the ECU in conjunction with Microsoft. Apart from the irony possible in that McLaren, if accused by the FIA inspectors of using Ferrari ideas in the design of their MP4-23, might not get to use the ECU themselves, this does raise questions about the wisdom of forcing competitor-developed technology on the teams.
Thinking back to the beginning of the year, I recall Bridgestone's assurances that they would be completely even-handed in their supply and relationship with all the teams, no favor being given to their previous customers, Ferrari in particular. As things turned out, it may be that this was not entirely true.
You may remember the fuss that was made in the WMSC hearing when it was mentioned that Alonso and de la Rosa had discussed "Ferrari tire secrets", and the famous gas used to inflate them. But how does this square with Bridgestone's earlier assurance of fair treatment? Note that, to check on what he'd learned, Pedro de la Rosa asked a Bridgestone engineer and was assured that the gas had been used in the past but without clear results.
So Bridgestone knew what Ferrari were doing with the tires but did not pass on the information to other teams. Is that being fair? Surely the tire company had a duty, if they knew of something that improved the performance of their products, to pass on the information to all the teams, or they could be said to be favoring one over the others.
And now we have a situation where one of the competing teams owns the company that produces an important component that all teams must use. Of course, McLaren maintain that they would not interfere with the production from their subsidiary and I believe them; but why does the FIA also take them at their word after a season in which they have accused and convicted the team of all sorts of underhand dealing?
Anyone who has used a computer knows that there are ways and means for software engineers to insert undetectable tweaks into their products that do things they ought not to. That is the main reason for the FIA insisting on a standard ECU after all - to ensure that the ban on traction control could not be circumvented by hidden tweaks within the team's ECU. How much easier it would be for McLaren to insert code that favors their car over others.
I have said right from the moment the FIA chose McLaren Systems as the supplier of the standard ECU that it was an obvious conflict of interests and that the contract should have been awarded to Magneti Marelli. Now we see the beginnings of the trouble that could result from such a foolish decision.
If McLaren are allowed to compete next year and their car proves to be the quickest, how long will it be before suspicion arises around the ECU? Could the FIA have set up the sport for another year of wrangles over matters that really have no place in F1? Bad decisions need to be changed and I have no doubt that the initial choice of ECU supplier should be changed, even at the price of delaying the traction control ban one more year.
Better still, they should ban ECU's completely and let the engineers work as they always used to work - without computers to fine-tune the engine for them. So there would be a few more engine failures? Rather that than these constant visits to the law courts to decide who wins what and why.
This year it was the switch to Bridgestone tires that effectively put Renault out of contention. So closely had they worked with Michelin, designing their cars around the company's products, that they were bound to have more trouble than most in adjusting to completely new rubber. And now the ECU comes along to complicate their preparations for 2008.
Naturally, since it no longer makes provision for traction control systems, the ECU is simpler than the Renault technicians are used to but it seems that its implementation is also a good deal different from their previous Marelli-designed system. Bell points out that the time devoted to integrating the ECU with their car is time lost in other areas.
Most of the teams are going to have similar problems, as they did with Bridgestones, but this time it will be McLaren that has a head start, since it was their company that designed the ECU in conjunction with Microsoft. Apart from the irony possible in that McLaren, if accused by the FIA inspectors of using Ferrari ideas in the design of their MP4-23, might not get to use the ECU themselves, this does raise questions about the wisdom of forcing competitor-developed technology on the teams.
Thinking back to the beginning of the year, I recall Bridgestone's assurances that they would be completely even-handed in their supply and relationship with all the teams, no favor being given to their previous customers, Ferrari in particular. As things turned out, it may be that this was not entirely true.
You may remember the fuss that was made in the WMSC hearing when it was mentioned that Alonso and de la Rosa had discussed "Ferrari tire secrets", and the famous gas used to inflate them. But how does this square with Bridgestone's earlier assurance of fair treatment? Note that, to check on what he'd learned, Pedro de la Rosa asked a Bridgestone engineer and was assured that the gas had been used in the past but without clear results.
So Bridgestone knew what Ferrari were doing with the tires but did not pass on the information to other teams. Is that being fair? Surely the tire company had a duty, if they knew of something that improved the performance of their products, to pass on the information to all the teams, or they could be said to be favoring one over the others.
And now we have a situation where one of the competing teams owns the company that produces an important component that all teams must use. Of course, McLaren maintain that they would not interfere with the production from their subsidiary and I believe them; but why does the FIA also take them at their word after a season in which they have accused and convicted the team of all sorts of underhand dealing?
Anyone who has used a computer knows that there are ways and means for software engineers to insert undetectable tweaks into their products that do things they ought not to. That is the main reason for the FIA insisting on a standard ECU after all - to ensure that the ban on traction control could not be circumvented by hidden tweaks within the team's ECU. How much easier it would be for McLaren to insert code that favors their car over others.
I have said right from the moment the FIA chose McLaren Systems as the supplier of the standard ECU that it was an obvious conflict of interests and that the contract should have been awarded to Magneti Marelli. Now we see the beginnings of the trouble that could result from such a foolish decision.
If McLaren are allowed to compete next year and their car proves to be the quickest, how long will it be before suspicion arises around the ECU? Could the FIA have set up the sport for another year of wrangles over matters that really have no place in F1? Bad decisions need to be changed and I have no doubt that the initial choice of ECU supplier should be changed, even at the price of delaying the traction control ban one more year.
Better still, they should ban ECU's completely and let the engineers work as they always used to work - without computers to fine-tune the engine for them. So there would be a few more engine failures? Rather that than these constant visits to the law courts to decide who wins what and why.