And It’s Go, Go, Go! – 2014 F1 Preview

Barely four months ago Sebastian Vettel took the checkered flag at Interlagos, to wrap up a sensational second half of the season for the German, collecting his ninth consecutive win and fourth world title.

However, just 112 days later the drivers and teams are getting ready to turn their wheels in anger yet again as what promises to be an intriguing F1 season gets underway in Melbourne.

The same eleven teams will line up on the Australian grid and there are a few new faces, or familiar ones in different cars, but it is the rule changes and the disrupted pre-season testing which is gaining the most column inches in the run-up to the season opener.

So what can we expect from this new campaign and who will emerge triumphant in Abu Dhabi at the end of November?

The Inquisitive Panda takes a look at what could be the determining factors.

Reliability

With the massive rule changes and lack of pre-season testing (particularly for some teams) getting to the end of the race might be the first big hurdle for many teams.

Even those with miles under their belt in Jerez and Bahrain will be casting nervous eyes over their computer read-outs during the early rounds looking for the first hint of technical problems.

However, any team who can get from start to finish and pick up early points will be in a good position come the alter rounds.

This brings to mind Jenson Button’s championship winning seasons with Brawn where the British driver won six of the first seven races, did not stand on the top of the podium again all season, but still collected the drivers trophy at the end of the season.

Mercedes, or at least the Mercedes powered teams, look to be in the best shape so if any of their drivers can string together a series of wins early on, while the others are struggling to complete races, then they will be in great shape for the rest of the year.

ERS, the replacement system for KERS, will be even more important this year thanks to the increased power boost the energy recovery systems will generate this season, so the dreaded “you have no KERS” message will be pertinent this year.

Development

Although reliability will be the focus of the early rounds, development will be just as, if not more, important this year than ever before.

F1 has never been a sport to stand still and the winning team is often the one who provides the best upgrades at the opportune moments during the season.

This is especially true for the teams expected to struggle early on, such as Red Bull and Toro Rosso.

The F1 circus returns to Europe early in May, which is where teams would normally start to make substantial changes to the vehicles, but it would surprise nobody if alterations were already being made in Malaysia two-weeks after Melbourne.

Assuming pre-season testing has not lied to everyone, Red Bull and the other Renault powered cars will need to satisfy themselves with what they can get early on and focus on bringing in the right upgrades at the right circuits to pick up larger points hauls later on.

Engines

A major thorn in the side of team principles and race engineers this year, with the reliability problems, is going to be the use of engines.

Just five power units are available to each team for the entire season and this could cause major headaches if teams loose engines early on.

In the recent, uber-reliable seasons teams could judge how hard and long an engine could be pushed, calculating when to ditch it to get the most benefits from a new unit at certain tracks.

However, a couple of blow-outs in the first few rounds and teams might not have the luxury of brand new engines for the fast tracks at Silverstone, Spa and Monza.

Smooth Driving

Reliability might be causing the more obvious headaches, but efficient running is also going to be a major challenge for the drivers and teams to circumnavigate as the entire motorsport fraternity is pushed towards a more environmentally friendly outlook.

Tyres are still strictly limited, while the amount of fuel each car gets has been heavily reduced.

This should benefit smooth drivers who are not as heavy on tyres or fuel consumption and generally put less pressure on the cars components.

While attack minded drivers, such as Hamilton and Grosjean, might struggle, their polar opposites, like Button and Hulkenberg, could do very well.

Qualifying

In a pleasing move, the F1 authorities have decided to shake-up Qualifying 3 (Q3), otherwise known as the pole position shoot-out.

The top-ten will now start on the tyres used in Q2, not Q3, and any teams qualifying for, but not competing in, Q3 will have grid position based on their Q2 time, not race number.

This, along with the new pole position trophy, awarded to the driver with the most pole starts during a season, should increase activity during the final qualifying period and stop teams settling for a top-ten start rather than wasting another set of tyres.

As the season continues qualifying should regain some of its drama, often lacking last season, but early on teams will probably focus more on getting a car to the end of the race rather than a good starting position.

Rookies

There are certainly not many new faces on the grid this season so discussing rookies is a little redundant, but one name did leap out of the pre-season timing boards, Kevin Magnussen.

The young Finn impressed greatly in the McLaren and it will be interesting to see how he gets on in the early rounds when the Mercedes powered cars are expected to do well.

Daniel Ricciardo will also be looking for a big first season in the Red Bull, but might have to wait a few races before he gets to show what he is capable of.

Wiser Heads

With the rule changes this is probably a season for the more mature heads of the F1 grid, whose experience will tell them picking up some points is more important than crashing going for a win.

With both entering the twilight of their careers, it will be interesting to see how the Ferrari pairing of Alonso and Raikkonen get on.

Massa, who left the Scuderia for Williams, has been looking very fast pre-season and a few good results could see the Grove-based get back to their former glory.

Button, as previously mentioned, is also worth looking out for as the voice of experience in a seemingly rejuvenated McLaren team.

Backmarkers

Many pundits have been critical of Caterham and Marussia over the last couple of years claiming both of the new teams have made little progress.

While this might be true, the major rule changes give both outfits the chance to pick up some points, cash and sponsorship in the early rounds.

With reliability such a worry, any team able to complete race distance could be in with a shot of points.

Kobayashi at Caterham certainly knows the series, but is also known for outrageous overtaking manoeuvres, which might not be available to him this year, so it will be interesting to see if the Japanese driver has matured during his sabbatical.

Midfield

As with may F1 seasons, the really interesting battles take place not at the front, but for the smaller points places with the likes of Sauber, Force India, Williams and Toro Rosso looking to cash in on television time and sponsorship money.

Williams look to have a strong package this year and could compete a little higher up the grid, although predictions of Massa and Bottas challenging for race wins might be a little farfetched.

The main question is which, if any, of the front-runners drop off the pace and start to come into the reaches of the main pack and if any of the midfielders fall into the clutches of the backmarkers.

If any of these teams are going to cause a stir and punch above their weight this season they will have to be on form straight from the get-go in Australia and maximise the early-season confusion as teams get to grip with new technology.

Front Runners

Mercedes and McLaren both looked strong during pre-season, while Ferrari and Lotus are both still relatively unknown quantities, with the Prancing Horses looking a little inconsistent and the tusk-nosed Lotus not appearing at the first test.

Red Bull on the other hand had a well-publicised nightmare and will be keen to show this counts for nothing during the early races.

What will be fascinating during the first half of the season is to see if one driver is able to build up a substantial points cushion, or if a variety of drivers will be standing on the podium at each race.

Titles

It is difficult to look past Mercedes for the constructors’ championship this season. Pre-season suggests they have the strongest package straight out of the gate, which should lead to some good early points hauls and, assuming development goes well, this should see them through to the end.

The drivers’ title is harder to call, with Hamilton currently the bookies favourite, a claim it is hard to argue with.

However, agreeing with the bookies would be dull and although Hamilton is certainly in the mix, do not write off his Mercedes teammate Rosberg.

With Buttons experience and Magnussen’s natural pace it will certainly be interesting to see how both fare in the early rounds.

Ferrari might not have set the world on fire, for several season, but with two world champions in the Marranello outfits cars they will certainly be in the mix.

One final prediction. Write off Vettel at your own risk.

Race of the Year

Every F1 fan looks forward to certain races each year, with the Monaco, Canadian, British, Belgian and Italian Grand Prix’s normally firm fan favourites.

However, this season the Australian Grand Prix, purely by virtue of being first on the calendar, could be very exciting to watch, while the return of the circuit formally known as the A1 Ring and the new entry from Russia will be of particular interest.

Surprise of the Year

How competitive Red Bull is even early on. With Adrian Newey and Christian Horner you have two of the best technical minds in motorsport, while Vettel has proved over four consecutive seasons how good a driver he really is.

While they might not be at the front down under, expect them to up there come the end of the season.

Also expect the ridiculous double points system in Abu Dhabi not to make a blind bit of difference to who wins the title.

It will also be interesting to see how far into the season the first legal challenge about a piece of technology is launched. These court cases have blighted the sport over the last few years, as teams indulge in competitive one-upmanship so teams cannot benefit from newly developed parts.

Conclusion

With the rule changes and the sheer quality of drivers on display there is a palpable excitement surrounding the start of the season.

Australia will set the benchmark and before the cars take the chequered flag on Sunday we can only speculate what the outcomes will be.

New technology and regulation will always lead to confusion so expect some surprises during qualifying and the races in the early rounds before everything settles down into a more predictable format as the season progresses.

Legal Battle – Lawyers Strike Needs More Attention

All too often the media is accused of making a mountain out of a molehill, looking for stories where one does not exist, or even distorting and exaggerating the facts to sell newspapers.

However, sometimes the media goes in the wrong direction and gives barely any coverage to what are vitally important stories.

One of these has cropped up today in the form of the lawyers “strike”. Just for the record the quote marks are because this is not technically a strike as it might break contractual obligations to the Legal Aid Agency.

The walk-out will affect cases in most major cities, including the Max Clifford trial, and could include up to 3,000 barristers, who have been threatened by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) with the deprivation of state prosecution work.

So what is it all about and why does it need more coverage?

The main basis for the “strike” is substantial cuts to legal aid, essentially resulting in lawyers being paid a lot less for work for those who cannot afford to pay for someone to represent them.

It would be easy to argue lawyers, like bankers, make large sums of money anyway so why would a reduction in their fees from those who cannot afford them anyway make any difference.

This argument, though valid in a prima facie evaluation, completely misses the point.

Unfettered access to a lawyer, the notion of innocence until proven guilty and a robust appeals process are not only vital in the application of the law, but essential for a country to uphold even the most basic of democratic principles.

Most people cannot afford to hire a lawyer for extended periods of time, but the whole concept of legal aid was to subsidise those who have legal case to answer and was designed so the law was not subject to corruption and discrimination based on money.

For example, take a person on an average income who wants to bring action against a large corporation.

Without legal aid the case would undoubtable side with the large corporation purely because they can afford to prolong the case and pay the legal experts to protect them.

Everyone in this country is entitled to a fair and free trial and, repugnant as it maybe when you see lawyers representing the likes of Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, this cannot be a selective process.

Just because you cannot afford to hire a lawyer does not mean you should forsake your right to have your case heard by a judge and jury.

For those of you still having doubts about this argument then ask yourself one question.

What would happen if you were wrongly accused of a crime? Would you be able to afford a lawyer and would you still feel some people are not entitled to representation?

This problem, however, goes deeper than just your entitlement to representation.

If lawyers are not going to get paid to do this work then people are firstly going to think twice about entering the legal profession and secondly likely to think twice about representing state sponsored clients.

The terrifying scenario is those people who cannot afford to pay full legal fees will end up with either no representation, or even more worryingly a really bad lawyer.

An unbiased application of the law is a founding principle of everything we believe in as a free and democratic people and this must include access to qualified and competent lawyers regardless of your economic situation.

In the age of austerity there are many controversial budget cuts and an argument can be made about most eroding the founding principles of this country, but when we are talking about peoples access to a fair trial this idea cannot be overstated.

Without legal aid this countries legal system could very quickly regress to the Victorian age when the depth of your pockets meant more than the validity of your arguments, or, even more troublingly a boom in ‘Ambulance Chasers’ who promise clients the world only to disappoint them at every turn with no course of action for their clients to take.

As citizens in this country we are entitled to a fair trial regardless of our circumstances and this issue demands our undivided attention to ensure this basic right is never taken away from us.

Perhaps it was Aristotle who said it best “At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.”

No To Co’s - An Unexpected Promise

If the public had not already, it appears the major political parties have decided they do not like coalition government and are coming under increasing force to rule out a joint-rule arrangement after the 2015 election.

First it was the Conservatives with a variety of sources claiming David Cameron was under pressure to rule out another power share, which saw him move into 10 Downing Street in 2010.

Barely a day later Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite union, claimed Labour leader Ed Miliband should similarly rule out coalition in their election manifesto.

While it would be fair to say few are enamoured with the manner in which the Con-Dem coalition has operated over the past four years, this idea of ruling out a similar set-up after 2015 is slightly ridiculous.

For starters, the obvious weakness in both the major parties means a minority government, formed by either the Conservatives or Labour, would struggle to get anything done and would probably have to call an early election.

There is far too much posturing and difference of opinion for either to carry all its own MPs in a vote, let alone pick up cross-party support.

Secondly, in a business where unbridled personal ambition is all-to-often put front and centre are we seriously expecting our leaders to turn-down the opportunity to come to power?

Thirdly, why would any leaders think this would be a good idea when a hung-parliament is the most likely outcome of the next election?

There is of course some legitimacy in the view of ruling out coalition.

Although it came to power with a substantial public backing, the overriding opinion of the coalition’s performance has only headed south over the years.

This backlash has mainly focused on the Liberal Democrats, who have been seen as weak and ineffective by their supporters and an ever-present road block by the Tories.

Current electoral math suggests the next election will not produce a majority government, meaning the Liberal Democrats would yet again become the king makers, with a potential second term for Nick Clegg as Deputy Prime Minister regardless of who occupies the top-spot.

When you consider the substantial and growing anti-Lib Dem feeling, an instant return to power would be slightly unpalatable to many voters.

However, it is equally true no other third-tier party would be able to gain enough seats to push either Conservatives or Labour over the finish line.

In the current parliament, the party with the largest number of seats after the Lib Dems are the Democratic Unionists (with 8 seats and no framework outside Northern Ireland), the Scottish National Party (6 seats, no framework outside Scotland and the possibility of national independence), Sinn Fein (5 seats and links to the IRA), Plaid Cymru (3 seats and no framework outside of Wales) and the Social Democratic & Labour Party (3 seats).

Even if Nick Clegg’s party lost half its MPS in 2015 they would still have 28 seats (down from 56), meaning any minority government would require their support to pass any legislation.

As a political tactic from the Conservatives, whereby ruling it out themselves means the Labour party would have to follow suit, it certainly could succeed so all they would need to do at in 2015 is get more seats than Labour, however there is an element of all eggs in one basket.

While the coalition might not be a popular choice of government, the voters have to accept it is what they voted for and is still the most likely outcome of the next election.

Any party which rules it out in 2015 not only forsakes any chance they had of getting into government, but also corners itself completely on post-election bartering and could lead to serious accusations of lying to the electorate if they were eventually forced to join forces with another party.

Regardless of how loud the anti-coalition voices get it is hard to imagine either party leader is so devoid of ambition as to rule it out completely.

However, most importantly politicians should remember they do not get to decide this, it is up to the voters to determine if any party is worthy of a majority.

If we the people decide no one party should then it is up to them to form either a minority government and risk stagnation and an the calling of an early election or a cross party consensus and govern in a coalition.

And Repeat – Ed Miliband’s Public Service Reforms

After tackling energy companies and big banks Ed Miliband has now shifted his attention to what is always a tricky subject for Labour, public service reforms, but like Michael Gove on education is this little more than hot air?

Labour is to the public sector what the Conservative party is to private companies, a vital part of its political identity, a non-negotiable aspect of its philosophy, a singular defining element.

This in particularly true of Ed Miliband who was elected to the party leadership largely based on the backing of the trades unions, not to mention the party rely heavily on the political and financial backing of public sector workers and those who use government services.

However, in the same way as Gove’s education reforms, Miliband is in danger of simply saying the right things without any reasoning.

Essentially his argument was for a more consumer-focused approach to everything from education to health care to pensions.

This sounds fantastic, in the same way it has done every time an opposition leader has stood-up and said it, which is every parliament for as long as anyone can remember.

Putting parents are the forefront of how schools are run sounds wonderful because it is parents who truly care about how their kids are educated, not politicians.

Giving patients control over their medical records and adding choice of hospitals and doctors similarly gives 

those who care most control over the system.

Like Gove, Miliband is saying all the right things.

However, unlike the Education Secretary’s reforms this will attract floating voters to the party, although it is very much in the same dangerous ball-park of talking the talk, but not walking the walk, because fundamentally both have similar flaws.

The reason for this is because in most cases the only people who know how to reform these services are the people working in them, be they teachers, nurses, doctors, social workers or refuse collectors.

Most parents are not teachers and even fewer patients have any medical training above a first-aid course.

When you feel unwell you go to a doctor to find out what is wrong with you because they actually have the training assess your complaints, perform diagnostics and provide a cure.

Why would you want to be in control of your own medical records? Is this ever going to lead to anything other than people assuming they know better than professionals?

This trend continues with this idea of parents being able to oust head teachers and have greater involvement in how education is provided in their children’s schools.

Parent power in this situation could be counter-productive to what is trying to be achieved because the percentage of parents who know anything about teaching is negligible.

If you want proof of this fact just go and stand by a school sports pitch and listen to the ill-informed comments coming from certain sections of parents.

Gary Linker has even had to put up with this kind of nonsense with other parents at his children’s school thinking they know better than England’s second highest goal scorer according to an article he wrote for the New Statesman.

Many people agree with the need for reform of these vital public services which are all too often inefficient, bureaucratic and staggeringly expensive, but while people-power seems like a great idea and is certainly popular with the voters it is not necessarily the way to make things work better.

Even more worrying is this idea was touted at the last election by David Cameron and his Big Society idea, which is yet to manifest itself in any serious manner.

So while this might give Miliband a political bat and ball on this difficult issue and might even gain the Labour party a boost in the polls, his ideas will certainly need to be developed a lot further to convince anyone this is anything other than the same idea trotted out by any other opposition leader.