AJ's getting some IZOD duds

From the Twitter today:






Boo for one less permanent car, but yay for the end of RHR's crazy Vision ride that never felt full-fledged to begin with.

Foyt's team may be kinda...bad but at least this team will actually be trying to give him the best car possible. RHR is an upgrade over Quattro, especially with a July full of right turners. It will also give them a chance to have some continuity from here on out rather than have a revolving door of drivers. Hopefully he pulls some great results out and shows his calibre as a driver.

The IRL is trying to make me a NASCAR fan

After the snooze fest tonight, I'm actually looking forward to the Pocono "Why the hell is this terrible ass race 500 miles long?" 500. Who would have ever thought Texas Motor Speedway could produce such a terrible race? I said it several times on Twitter tonight: IndyCars on ovals are broken.

Tonight was not an aberration in 2009. Kansas was a boring race, Indy was a boring race, and Milwaukee was a slightly less boring race. What the hell happened to my beloved side-by-side racing? The kind of action that made me like IndyCars in the first place? The aerodynamics in these cars suck royally. And without any significant differences between the cars (like say, another engine), we get high-speed parades. When the series champion is calling you on your national television coverage (albeit to a very small mass of fans), that's a serious problem.

It's not just a problem for us bored hardcores. How is the series supposed to recruit new fans when there is nothing interesting to draw them in?

We don't see another high-speed oval until August. In the meantime, let's try and fix what's wrong with the races on them (or at least consider new things for 2010). First, rip the effin' fuel dials off the cars. Every race has the exact same pattern now: Green Flag, a few laps of dicing for position, then everybody sets the knob for fuel saving and files in for the parade. I get bored and flip around until I find Indonesian synchronized swimming championships or something. Repeat on every restart.

Also let everyone have varied wheelbases again. Clearly that experiment has been an EPIC FAIL. If teams can't afford extra parts, whatever. It's not like the current rules is seeing a Coyne car battling for the lead with the red guys.

And while we're at it, make the guy in the last pit box have to turn like everyone else. In the last two years there have been several races (the one coming right to my head is Edmonton) where somebody won because of that damn pit box. Even if you want to justify it as a "reward" for success, Helio wasn't deserving of it. And the less on-track passing we see, the more this will have an impact.

God I'm pissed. Can't wait for F1 tomorrow. At least there a leader's engine could blow and change everything, although if Button is leading it's not bloody likely. I'm rooting for Vettel though.

Driver Rankings for Weekend of May 24, 2009

My rankings are a little late, but I've updated rankings reflecting the races in Monaco, Indy and Charlotte. I've also added a brand new graphic showing the biggest gainers and losers in the week's rankings.

Jenson Button is looking impossible to beat at this point, being nearly 16 points ahead of the new #2, his Brawn teammate Rubens Barrichello. The Indy 500 has had the biggest effect on the rankings, with a bulk of the gainers and losers coming from IndyCar. Franchitti went up by three, Castroneves went up four, and Danica Patrick went up seven. Nobody though is close to Jenson Button, who will need several DNFs for anyone to get close to him.



Gainers and Losers

The theme this week for the top gainers are High 500 finishers and Ferrari superstars. Leading the pack is Kimi Raikkonen, up 21 spots from 61st to 40th, followed by 500 runner-up Dan Wheldon (43-24), and Ed Carpenter (67-49). The big losers are mostly guys with bad ends to their 500s (namely, putting it in the wall), led by Graham Rahal, Justin Wilson, and Ryan Hunter-Reay. Another factor to remember for Wilson and Hunter-Reay is that they are likely still coming down to earth from their strong starts in St. Petersburg.

Making F1 Budget Caps work

The plan for a budget cap in F1 has been announced. Realizing that most of the current team would find it impossible to cut their budget down to 40 million pounds in 12 months, the FIA has decided instead to let teams that do use the cap to have greater technical freedom, like more off-season testing and no rev limiters on the engines. Unsurprisingly, the current teams don't like it, and feel it is creating two classes of teams.

McLaren's Martin Whitmarsh:

Equally, we recognize the excellent work done recently by the FIA in the area of cost-reduction. Having said all that, we understand that some teams' operational budgets may still be unnecessarily high in the challenging global economic situation in which we now find ourselves. Nonetheless, we believe that the optimal solution - which may or may not include a budget cap, but which ideally would not encompass a two-tier regulatory framework - is most likely to be arrived at via measured negotiation between all parties.

Sir Frank Williams:

Williams has supported the introduction of a budget cap since the idea was first put forward early in 2008," said Williams. "Since then FOTA has made tremendous steps forward on costs but the rationale for a budget cap has also grown even stronger. We would like to see all the teams operating to one set of regulations and under a budget cap in 2010 and that is the position we will be advocating within FOTA when we meet next week. We understand that this will represent a serious challenge for some of the teams but we expect that FOTA will work together to find a unified and constructive way to take the FIA's initiative forward.

Having two sets of technical rules is a weird way to handle it, and it goes against the general spirit of F1. There definitely has to be an incentive for teams to join in the budget caps, but there is another way to do it.

Make it financially viable

When I think about a soft budget cap like the one the FIA is proposing, I consider what the NBA has done with their salary cap. Like the F1 cap, it is not mandatory to follow thanks to the NBA's dozens of exceptions. However, not upholding the cap comes at a price - the teams have to pay money back to the league for going over.

Idea #1: Luxury Tax

Like the NBA, going over the limit by a certain amount causes a constructor to pay a "tax" back to the FIA. For instance, if Ferrari was 100 million GBP over the cap, they would have to pay back some percentage of that money to the FIA. The money could then be distributed to the teams that did follow the cap, a la the NBA.

The advantage of the luxury tax plan would be that big spenders could still remain that way, albeit with a financial cost. After a certain point I'd assume that those teams, particularly factory teams, would not want to spend money on something with no possible return, and as a result the Toyotas, Ferraris, and McLarens of the world would reduce their budgets either to the cap or to a level where the tax is not so taxing.

The problem that might be perceived by the use of the luxury tax is could essentially be team welfare if done incorrectly. Capped teams would have their budgets entirely covered by the big spenders. To prevent this, I'd propose a limit to how much money a team could recieve from luxury tax sharing and either redistribute leftover money back to taxed teams or give it to charity.

Idea #2: Changing how teams share the money

The other idea follows how F1 teams earn money through the year from FOM. For more information, read F1 Fanatic's story about where the money goes in Formula One. Essentially, what would happen under this plan would alter the share each team gets. While teams exist outside the budget caps, FOM money that goes to teams would be split into two pools: one for teams with budget caps, one for teams without them. The distribution within each pool would be even, but the percentage of money goes to each pool would be different. The percentage would have to be as such that capped teams would ultimately get more money back from FOM than the teams without the cap.

Let's say for example that the FOM money given back to teams is 180 million GBP (I have no idea what the actual amount FOM gives out is). There are twelve teams in F1 in 2010 in this scenario, with the capped teams being newbies Lola and USGP along with Force India, while everyone else is uncapped. Let's split the money in half, with each pool being 90 million pounds . With three capped teams sharing one pool, they'd each get 30 million, while the uncapped teams would get only 10 million each.

For teams on the low end of the current F1 spending, having the budget drop covered somewhat could be an incentive to join the budget cap brigade. Still, a twenty million pound windfall like in my example would hardly be an incentive for a Toyota or Ferrari to be more thrifty.

2009 Driver Rankings: 4/29/2009

For a look at how this works, see here.

Another week, another set of driver rankings to reveal. None of my big 3 series had particularly interesting racing, however that wasn't the case with this week's rankings. The big ones at Talladega had several top NASCAR guys lose big points. With only three races completed so far, the IndyCar rankings are still quite volatile, with the biggest gainer and biggest loser this week coming from the IRL.

The rules of my rankings require that a driver participate in at least half of the events his or her series runs in order to be ranked. Because of that, the most recent NASCAR winner Brad Keselowski, whose run 4 of 9 Sprint Cup events, is ineligible. His current average of 9.625 would place him in 37th place though if he was included.

Top 10 in Focus

1. Jenson Button, F1 (last week - 1)

Fourth week in a row that Button sits #1 in the standings, now by a margin of more than 10. Without any IndyCar races until the end of next month, he's bound to stay on top until at least then. Even if he scored no ranking points in Spain, he'll still have a 31.800 average.

2. Will Power, IndyCar (last week - 3)

Being rideless this week actually helped Will Power become the top ranked IndyCar driver after Dario Franchitti crashed out and got his qualifying run thrown out. He will get to run at Indy though, hopefully for him it will be good enough to get sponsor dollars for the rest of the season.

3. Rubens Barrichello, F1 (last week - 4)

Rubens had a solid point gain this week to maintain a high position on the chart. He has not been as strong as his teammate Button, which may be an area of concern as the other teams close the diffuser gap in Spain and Monaco.

4. Sebastian Vettel, F1 (last week - 12)

A runner-up finish in Bahrain together with his victory in China has seen Vettel moved in two weeks from 41st to 4th. Unless Button suffers a disaster run of form the only way I could see someone else getting up to #1 is if this kid gets on a serious winning streak, preferably with a few poles along the way.

5. Jarno Trulli, F1 (last week - 16)

Earning pole in Bahrain was key to Jarno's success this week, as he actually earned more ranking points than Vettel despite finishing third.

6. Tony Kanaan, IndyCar (last week - 7)

Another consistently good week for Kanaan saw him become the ICS points leader if just barely, while he remains the highest ranked driver with a guaranteed ride for the season.

7. Dario Franchitti, IndyCar (last week - 2)

Dario scored a big ol' donut this week, causing him to drop five places.

8. Jeff Gordon, NASCAR (last week - 5)

The biggest victim of the first Big One of Talladega '09.

9. Kurt Busch, NASCAR (last week - 9)

Older Busch has been #9 for three weeks running.

10. Ryan Briscoe, IndyCar (last week - 10)

Briscoe caught an unlucky break on Sunday when the caution flew prior to hitting the pit line, but it did not effect him to badly here.




Other Facts

• Biggest Gainer: Kansas winner and last year's #1 driver Scott Dixon, who went from 60th to 15th in one weekend.
• Biggest Loser: Raphael Matos, who went from 45th to 59th.
• Only one man is keeping Jenson Button from having the top average in all three categories (race results, qualifying and bonus) : Graham Rahal, whose qualifying average of 8.67 points/qualifying session leads Button and Will Power (8.5 each).
  

2009 Driver Rankings: 4/21/2009

For a look at how this works, see here.

My driver rankings have returned for another week after a brief break. I was in Nashville over Easter and unable to post rankings for two weeks ago (I got a reprieve the last week since F1, IndyCar, and NASCAR were all off). Since Jenson Button won in Malaysia no one would be surprised that he retained the #1 spot on the list.

Although Button finally did not win a race, his third place finish in Shanghai was more than enough to keep him in the top spot for another week, his third overall. But it also makes this the first rankings of the season to not have a driver who won that weekend in the top spot.

This week has also had another bit of history for 2009: the first "perfect" weekend in the rankings. The driver who did this was Mark Martin, winning from pole while leading the most laps and setting fastest lap. He gained several positions to finish 11th this week, but he's far from the highest gainer.

Top 5

1. Jenson Button, F1 (last week - 1)

Did not win this week, but enough to stay ahead of the pack. It's an amazing run for a guy who going into the season had one win and thought to be a bit washed up.

2. Dario Franchitti, IndyCar (last week - t-10)

Although most IndyCar fans consider Dario one of the better road racers, his win at Long Beach was his first in an IRL car on a right turner.

3. Will Power, IndyCar (last week - t-10)

Power showed why he is capable of being a Penske driver despite not winning this weekend. It is a shame that he will likely be rideless for Kansas, but fortunately for Will it will have no effect on my points, since your total is averaged against the races you've run and that what the field has.

4. Rubens Barrichello, F1 (last week - 5)

Rubens moves up one thanks to drops by IndyCar drivers Justin Wilson and Ryan Hunter-Reay, who ran well at St. Pete but did not deliver similar performances in Long Beach.

5. Jeff Gordon, NASCAR (last week - 6)

Gordon averaged dropped a bit this weekend thanks to a dud in Phoenix, but goes in rank for the same reason as Barrichello above him.


Here's the top 40 list:



Biggest Gainer: This week's biggest gainer was Danica Patrick. The world's fastest swimsuit model was tied for last going into Long Beach, having scored zero points in St. Petersburg. However, a fourth place finish and a most improved bonus takes her all the way from a tie for 80th to 33rd. Her teammate Marco Andretti gained 33 spots himself, while Chinese Grand Prix winner Sebastian Vettel gained 29 positions.

My heart is empty right now...

Yes, this blog is about racing, but I am also a huge fan of the Philadelphia Phillies. The Phillies were the first sports team I ever latched on to, and to see them win the World Series last October was my favorite moment as a sports fan. As a Phillies fan you're conditioned to deal with disappointment, but no string of last place teams can help cope with the lost of the lost of the voice of the team.

I watched the resumed Game 5 with the television on mute. I wanted to listen to MY announcers make the call - especially Harry knowing he didn't get to call the first title. To hear it was pure heaven. It's difficult to believe it will no longer be heard in person again. I did get the chance to see him in person earlier this year, when he emceed the Philadelphia Sportswriters Association awards. It's open to the public, and my dad got tickets for me as a birthday gift. The food might have been the typical rubber chicken sort of stuff, but in hindsight to see and hear him in the flesh before he passed is something I can't forget.



R.I.P. Harry

2009 Driver Rankings: 4/2/2009

This week's rankings are a tad bit late, but with the appeals regarding Trulli and Hamilton that is probably a good thing. Unsurprisingly, there's a new #1, and that's Jenson Button. Button opens the rankings with a super high 47.000 average (a.k.a. the number of points he scored in Melbourne). So far in 2009 this is the highest total that has been tallied in one race, and is three points shy of the maximum 50 points a driver can earn (Rosberg's fast lap prevented the sweep).

Top 30



Because of the new entries, only one driver actually went up in the rankings (although certainly other drivers enhanced their averages): Denny Hamlin, the runner-up at Martinsville, moving up from 12th to 10th.

Expect more fluctuations next week as IndyCar drivers get added to the pile and a second F1 race smooths out some of their scores. I expect things to begin to settle by the beginning of May, once each series has run a couple of races.

2009 Driver Rankings: 3/24/2009

For a look at how this works, see here.

It's been nearly a month since my last set of driver rankings, but with only one covered series running at this moment it's not quite ready for primetime. All that will change next weekend, since Formula One begins its season and IndyCar the next. With the way the rankings have appeared in 2008, this weekend is likely the last with a NASCAR driver in the top spot.

And that driver in the top spot? This weeks race winner, Kyle Busch. Shrub takes over the #1 spot from older bro Kurt who was #1 after the last race. Another interesting trend has emerged from the rankings: the driver who won the race that weekend has been #1 every weekend: Kenseth was obviously #1 after Daytona and retained after Fontana, Kyle took over after Las Vegas, then Kurt at Atlanta. #1 will again go to the most recent winner, although the Australian GP winner instead.

Top 25 (all NASCAR guys since nobody else has started)



Biggest Gainer of the Week: With his first good race of '09, Ryan Newman moved from 30th to 21st this week. Mark Martin moved up 7 thanks to his second straight pole.

Whatever Bernie Wants, Bernie Gets...

...Although not completely. The FIA's World Motor Sport Council decided to award the Formula One championship based on the number of wins a driver gets, irregardless of the number of points he earns thoughout the season. Points would only matter if the drivers are tied, but do matter for all positions but the World Champion

It's not the entireity of Monsieur Ecclestone's stupid medals concept, but has the same gist. I think it's a rather unnecessary concept that could have been remedied in a better fashion - changing the points and widening the gap between P1 and P2.

The modern era of Formula One has been so slanted towards one or two power teams that the rule would rarely be an issue. But what if this year is different? Say Kovalainen wins four races but performs poorly otherwise (wholly possible if McLaren is just sandbagging it so far), meanwhile the Ferrari guys and Hamilton each get three wins and dominate the podium? It would be a farce.

I have looked back every Formula One season since the beginning to see how the champs would have differed under this system. Of the 58 seasons so far, 10 have had the World Champion not be the driver win the title.

• 1958: Stirling Moss' 4 victories gives him the edge over Mike Hawthorn to be the first British F1 champ.
• 1964: Jim Clark wins back to back titles (3 wins to John Surtees' 2)
• 1967: Clark wins title #4 (4 wins) instead of Denny Hulme (2 wins)
• 1977: Mario Andretti goes into his real life title season as defending champ, besting Niki Lauda 4 wins to three.
• 1982: No one wins more than two times, with Keke Rosberg winning just once. Didier Peroni edges John Watson for the title on third place finishes (tied with points and second places).
• 1983: Alain Prost takes Nelson Piquet's title (4-3)
• 1986: Prost's title is taken from him by Nigel Mansell (5-4)
• 1987: Mansell wins back to back (5 to Piquet's 3)
• 1989: Senna's six wins beat Prost's four.
• 2008: Massa doesn't need Glock to hold off Hamilton this time.

Looking back at history, this idea is an unfortunate knee-jerk reaction to a situation that outside of the 1980s, is an incredibly rare occurence.