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.

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.

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.

Four Left Turns for F1

I was greeted this morning by an article from F1 Fanatic about oval racing for F1.Read the whole article here. I highly recommend it.

I think Keith Collantine brings up a great point for US involvement in F1. If they really want to succeed as a popular form of racing in America, running on an oval is the way to go. Whether we like it or not, the road racing is the USA is a niche racing market. The majority of racing interest is direct towards ovals. An F1 race on an oval would certainly get an IndyCar fan's interest, and likely NASCAR fans would be interested in the novelty of it.

An added benefit of using an oval from an American perspective is that we would see a greater deal of respect towards this type of track from both drivers and fans. To say that "just turning left" is easy oversimplifies what this type of racing requires. I've said this to others in the past that successful oval racing requires a slightly different skill set than road course racing, but nonetheless it deserves to be in a great driver's set of skills. To me that's why I think most highly of guys like Mario Andretti who have been very successful in several disciplines and numerous styles of racing. It's a range that is too seldom seen these days (Montoya may be the last of them right now). It could have an added effect of having older drivers like a Barrichello try IndyCars (or at least the 500) after their F1 careers have run their course in the vein of Emerson Fittipaldi. That would bring a better profile internationally to IndyCars, as it would not just be the F1 reject bin.

But where would they race? The amount of speed an F1 car can generate eliminates high banked tracks like Daytona, Michigan, and Texas from consideration. Besides, a low banked track is an easier transition for oval newbies (see last year's Milwaukee race for proof). That being said, Indy would be an obvious pick: clearly F1 ready, low banked, historical, and could show off the real speeds of these cars. Pocono is one on my radar, since the uniqueness of the track is the most similar thing to a road course. Plus since it's fairly close to NYC the F1 powers that be would be able to tap into the national media easily not to mention allow the muckety mucks to spend time there.

I don't think it will ever happen though. There would have to be some technical changes for the cars, not to mention enough Eurosnobs who don't get this kind of racing. Still, if they ever want to really break into to the US again it would be the best option.

Good luck Pete and Ken

I watched the USF1 press conference on Speed today. I hope it isn't a mitigated disaster. The culture of Formula One needs to be shaken up a bit - it's not fan friendly and too Eurocentric to be a complete World Championship. I'd love to see a more explicit American involvement in F1 on the team and driver standpoint.

Driver lineup hint? Go young. Develop folks with potential to be great drivers. Avoid Danica, in spite of the sheer amount of publicity it will bring to take her to the grid. I don't think she'd bite anyway (she is too smart about her image to allow herself to look like a major chump).

So what can be done to save racing as we know it?

The recent announcement by Honda that it is pulling out of F1 came as a shock to probably every racing fan, myself included. Furthermore, Audi, the defending champs of both the Le Mans Series and ALMS, is downsizing its program to focus on Sebring and Le Mans. To see major factory teams cutting their losses is pretty big. While much of the press about the auto slump at least here in the good old U.S. of A the extremely precarious positions of GM, Ford, and Chrysler, it is also affecting foreign makes too.

It makes me concern about the position of motorsports and if it can survive and still retain what makes it so great. The talk of the much-ballyhooed standard Formula One engine has returned, and people seem more willing to listen a few weeks later.

NASCAR faces a similar problem with the fact 3/4 of its automakers are dying without government assistance, with the ultimate possibility of having one or more makes gone by the green flag at Daytona. Several teams have merged (DEI-Ganassi) or closing up shop to make matters worse. For the first time in NASCAR history, a car owned by a Petty won't be in the field, since Petty Enterprises, the last original team, is basically done.

What can be done to save racing as we know it? I want to look at some ways the major racing series can significantly cut costs while retaining their identities. For example, I won't talk about a standard F1 engine, since it would radicially alter F1's identity. What can we do to prevent that from happening, while achieving the same effect? Likewise, how to save NASCAR from the slump as well?

The best thing NASCAR can do to save itself it to shorten itself, both in schedule length and race length.

It is a very easy way to reduce costs by simply running less events. Less weeks racing means less money is needed to run the team, thus a lesser burden on big sponsor dollars. Even if you don't extend the winter break and just take more break weeks in the season, that would have the added effect of more sponsor appearances opportunities for drivers, which could keep sponsors from fleeing the sport.

So what gets the ax? I would cut one of the Pocono races, as well as some of the weaker attended 2 race tracks, Fontana topping my list. Promoters will probably see attendance go up, since fans who previous attending the second race only will buy tickets to the single event instead. One well attended event has the added advantage of looking better on TV.

Shortening the races can also help save a bit of green for NASCAR teams. Less laps = less opportunities to wreck and spend costly dollars and man hours fixing the cars. Cuts tire costs, since there are less pit stops. I'm not too knowledgeable about the tech aspects of NASCAR engines, but something tells me a shorter race could stretch an engine's lifespan just a tad bit longer.

I am not advocating making it the Daytona 300 though. I'm talking about the 500 milers at tracks like Texas. All races would be limited to 300 miles, except for the ones the superspeedways (Daytona, Talladega), the Coca-Cola 600 and the Southern 500.

As for Formula One, there are many avenues to cut costs other than standardization. I've just read a story by Martin Brundle detailing how to cut costs. That article has a lot of solid solutions and is worth the read. I won't repeat any of his ideas, but I have one of my own.

Brundle's article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article5298985.ece

The schedule, for instance, poses a problem. The focus on expanding the season towards Asia with high fees has hurt the sport in retaining traditional venues like France and Canada, and perhaps even Germany in the near future. Most if not all that money is going into Bernie Ecclestone's pockets, and not into any assistance for teams. European GPs are certainly less expensive on the teams in transportation costs, since cars can be trucked to Hungary but have to be flown to Malaysia.

I understand the desire for Asian GPs, but the scheduling that exists is a hinderance to F1. In 2009, three separate trips must be made to the Asian continent: the post-Australia trip of Malaysia, China, and Bahrain, the late season trip to Singapore and Japan, and a one-off trip after Brazil to Abu Dhabi. This is a ridiculous idea. Attempt two trips instead, with an emphasis on putting nearby GPs together better.

For example, why are Malaysia and Singapore, with tracks separated by 210 miles, not together on the schedule when that could save the teams on transportation? Teams could fly into one country, run the grand prix, then take everything by truck to the other site, before driving it back after the race and flying back to Europe or onto a different Asian site. They did not run the US and Canadian races apart most of the time, so why do the same with these two races?

Series Rankings: 2008 in Open Wheel

It's a delay in getting these out, but here is a look at the complete ratings in major open wheel. These lists will include anyone with 2+ starts. In F1, that means I've include the Super Aguri guys and for IndyCar it's everyone but the one-offers at Indy & Long Beach. There are few surprises on these lists - the only one that may register is Paul Tracy joining the IndyCar top 10.

F1


IndyCar

2008 Driver Rankings (Finalized)

Here are the Final Driver Rankings for 2008. These rankings relate to top-flight, four-wheel circuit racing series, and do not include motorcycle racing, feeder series, drag racing, or rally racing. I will release a number of other charts through the winter that will incorporate those series as well, but this chart is my primary one and the one I updated each week as the season went on.

In order to be ranked on the main chart, a driver had to run at least half the season. Since NASCAR has tons of guys in this category, I cut it off at the top 35 when I started. Other guys would have made this chart in decent position (A.J. Allmendinger, for instance) but was not in the top 35.

Here's my tentative schedule for future postings:

• Dec. 3: Best of Category
  
• Dec. 4: Full IndyCar, and F1 Charts.
• Dec. 6: NASCAR Charts
  
• Dec. 7: Feeder Series Chart
• Dec. 10: MotoGP, NHRA, and World Rally Championship
• Dec. 14: Overall & Comprehensive Charts (there is a difference, it will be explained then).
• Dec. 17: The only currently running chart, the 08-09 A1GP chart.

The Rankings

Scott Dixon is the #1 Driver on the chart for 2008. With 6 wins and 13 podium finishes in 18 races, it's unsurprising to see him near the top. Helio made for an IndyCar 1-2 thanks to 8 runner-up finishes for the season.

The top 20 is fairly balanced amongst drivers from each of the three series, but the 2nd quarter of the chart is throughly dominated by NASCAR. When inputting the points, it is clear that NASCAR drivers have a difficult time reaching the pinnacle of the chart, but the Chase and almost Chase drivers had really strong stats to make it to the top.

Bringing up the bottom of the list is Force India's Adrian Sutil, who had a major combination of poor qualifying, difficulty finishing races (albeit many were mechanical errors), and failing to score a single bonus point to thank for an 80th place finish. He does have Kimi Raikkonen to blame for preventing him from his shining glory of the '08 season, when he was running 4th late in Monaco when the '07 World Champ clobbered him in the Nouvelle Chicane and knocked Adrian out of the race. Had he finished 4th or even 5th, his season ranking would have been 1.028, enough for 78th place and placing Jaime Camara at the bottom.

NASCAR to Kyle Busch: No Test for You!

The F1 test Kyle Busch was given by Toyota has been cancelled by NASCAR.

Because Kyle finished sixth in the Nationwide series in his abbreviated schedule (including a record-tying ten wins), he is being strong armed to the Nationwide awards banquet, which falls at the same of time as the proposed test for Toyota that is in Japan.

In case you were wondering why a NASCAR driver would get such a deal, it is more of a gesture of appreciate for kicking so much butt early in the season than a trial for a ride.

"I don't get to drive the formula one car anymore," said Busch, who did not contest the entire Nationwide calendar this year.
"I have to go to the Nationwide banquet and accept my sixth place awards instead," he confirmed.
"NASCAR took me away from the formula one car."

While NASCAR thinks it's the greatest thing to ever happen to racing, worldwide F1 is king, in spite of its numerous flaws. It's good PR, and would especially be so if Shrub runs competitive lap times.

This decision is one that might hurt NASCAR's relationship with Toyota. That's one I wouldn't want to disrupt. After all, they are the only manufacturer in the series that isn't in financial shambles at the moment. It may be the only one left in a few years for all we know.

Chinese GP Trouble?

Autosport is reporting that the Chinese Grand Prix may be in jeopardy after 2010. Poor ticket sales and sponsorship uncertainty may force F1 to leave Shanghai for the foreseeable future.

Shifting away from GPs with certain audiences (Canada, France) to places that can give a huge fee but lack racing heritage or a hardcore fanbase has lined Bernie's pockets well. There are plenty of problems with these races though. Anyone watching the newer Grands Prix, especially China, Malaysia and Bahrain can tell the attendance is poor. Whatever novelty existed in their inaugural runs has subsided, and as a result fewer fans come out. Combined this with the fact tickets for F1 races are far out of reach for the average person in many of these countries, hopes of bringing new fans to the track are doubtful. While you could argue the demographics of Brazil are similar, consider that Brazil had three native sons on the grid of its Grand Prix, one of whom nearly become World Champion.

Save the Japanese Grand Prix, most of the Asian GPs exist because the organizers have been willing to dish out the money. They are hanging by a thin cord, and in China it looks ready to snap.

From a racing standpoint, I would not be so sad to see the Chinese GP go. Shanghai is yet another Hermann Tilke track with all the things you've come to expect: flat and a long straight leading into a hairpin. It never seemed like the fans that did come were very enthusiastic. The racing was not special either. In the last two years, the only interesting thing that happened was Lewis Hamilton's crash on pit in last year. On a plus side for F1, it would save money for teams to not have to go to China as well (particularly in '09 when it is not bundled with Japan).

My hope is that it causes Formula One to relook at Canada & the US for races in the future. The organizers actually made money on the events, which of course means they have the opportunity to stick around a very long time. Likewise, the brass need to think long and hard about future Asian races planned in India and Korea.

I don't think it will happen, after all this is Formula One we're talking about. Logic and F1 goes as well together sometimes as Alonso and Hamilton.

TCC's Driver Rankings, 2008 Edition

This is a project I've been working on for several weeks now, and I'm ready to unveil it. I have developed a driver ranking system, where drivers from several different series can be compared to one another through a balanced, statistically based manner.

Some of the factors I look at in the rankings:

• Wins
• Second Place finishes
• Third Place finishes
• Finishes in quarter of the field
• Finishes in top half of the field
• Poles
• Front row starts
• Top quarter qualifying
• Top half qualifying
• Fastest Laps
• Leading laps
• Most Laps Led
• Most Positions Gained from start to finish

With these, I average everything based on the number of races each driver ran. There are examples of drivers who ran significantly less races during a season finishing much higher up in rankings (notably, Mark Martin in NASCAR). For qualifying stats, they are averaged against the number of qualifying sessions each driver ran. I did this separate from racing a few weeks in after NASCAR had three weeks in a row with rained out qualifying. Why should I award bonus points to drivers who get handed poles? This also made a heck of a lot of sense when I applied it to a few development series, GP2 and Indy Lights notably, that ran two-race weekends in which one race was determined by the other's finish. Again, finishing eighth in a GP2 race doesn't merit free pole points.

This listing is only the top 15 drivers among three series: Formula One, IndyCar, and NASCAR Sprint Cup.

Top 15

1. Scott Dixon, IndyCar - 28.035

The Iceman cometh at the top of the chart for 2008. Finishing in the top 3 in 13 of 18 races and six poles helped the Kiwi finish in #1.

2. Helio Castroneves, IndyCar - 25.715

The IndyCar Series runner-up is also runner-up here. Although it took him a long time to win some races, Helio had eight second place finishes on the season.

3. Lewis Hamilton, Formula One - 24.722

Hamilton will have to console with just being World Champion, as more parity in F1 held him to third. Like in real life, Hamilton was barely the top F1 guy in these rankings.

4. Felipe Massa, Formula One - 24.306

Massa was barely #2 among Formula One drivers. In fact, going into the Brazilian Grand Prix he was actually ahead of Lewis in the rankings, thanks to more fast laps.

5. Jimmie Johnson, NASCAR - 22.071

While doing the ratings, I've noticed it is very difficult for a NASCAR driver to ascend to the same heights as F1 & IndyCar guys. Jimmie's season has been very solid though and is deserving of a top 5 finish.

6. Kimi Raikkonen, Formula One - 21.444
7. Carl Edwards, NASCAR - 19.863
8. Ryan Briscoe, IndyCar - 19.701
9. Kyle Busch, NASCAR - 19.591
10. Tony Kanaan, IndyCar - 19.181
11. Robert Kubica, Formula One - 16.833
12. Heikki Kovalainen, Formula One - 16.806
13. Dan Wheldon, IndyCar - 16.736
14. Jeff Gordon, NASCAR - 16.063
15. Dale Earnhardt Jr., NASCAR - 15.769

With one race left in the NASCAR season, their drivers are still provisional. I'll be doing a more comprehensive listing soon, after the Homestead race. I also have rankings for feeder series, NHRA, and WRC as part of the need something to do in the offseason activities.

FIA = F***ing Idiots in Automobiles

This whole issue with the standardized engines in Formula One has gotten utterly ridiculous. Yesterday, golden children Ferrari said that if the FIA continues on the path to one, standardized engine, they might leave the series. The FIA's response, "it's not our job to cut costs, it's the teams."

This says to me that the powers that be in Formula One have no clue of how to actually run it. Leaving it up to teams is simply leaving thing status quo, where cutting costs is a game of chicken. It needs a regulatory body to make those changes.

Is a standard engine the right route though? It would kill one of the key distinctions F1 has over the large majority of other racing series: the distinctiveness of it's cars. Re-permitting customer cars is a better option, perhaps with a proviso that no one can own more than one team to prevent some teams from using one as the test subject. Limiting testing would be another way, since that is expensive as well. But to kill the one thing that makes F1 "superior" to most of the rest of the racing world? Madness.

In this cost cutting world, it would also behoove the Bernie & Max Circus to reconsider the global expansion initiative that has become ever present this past decade. Sure as sugar making all these trips to the Middle East and the Pacific Rim aren't cheap, while less costly options just whither away. Certainly trips to Brno, Imola, or the new track in the Algarve would costs millions less in transport than the races in Bahrain or Malaysia. Unfortunately, venue selection has been more focused on how much money Bernie Ecclestone makes from an event than other factors, such as enjoyable racing.

The problem is that these ideas seem to be falling on deaf ears. It may come to a manufacturer exodus that ultimately changes the sport for the better, but being a fan of American Open Wheel that road should be avoided if possible.