F1Racing.net has reported that the FIA has banned a clever tweak to the dampers that Ferrari and Renault have been using. Apparently they have been suspending a weight in the dampers that can move around to help compensate for disturbances from the tires on a bumpy surface. That is more or less what dampers are for but, presumably, the weights make them that little bit more effective.

I love the low key announcement of this minor event. Never mind the FIA’s reasons for the ban, the important point is that the matter has been handled without fuss and penalties. As far as I’ve read today, F1Racing is the only site to have picked up on the news and that gives some idea of how smoothly the FIA have made a decision and implemented it. That is how it should be.

The technical regulations governing F1 cars have become extremely detailed, specific and voluminous over the years and the FIA inspectors have to examine the cars minutely at each Grand Prix to ensure that no illegal tweaking is going on. Very often (and because it is impossible to regulate for tweaks no-one has invented yet) new ideas inhabit gray areas of the rules and are not immediately obvious as illegal. Just because something works, it does not automatically fall outside legality and it’s the FIA’s job to decide where the lines must be drawn.

In this case, the FIA has ruled that the weights contravene article 3.15 because they are not static and fixed to the body of the car. But you could say the same of the damper unit itself; it has to be movable. So the FIA has to make their choice – legal or illegal.

In point of fact, it makes little difference what they opt for. If they allow it, all teams will do it. And making it a no-no does at least save a little on extra costs.

Some would say that such nit-picking by the FIA stifles creativity and advance in F1 but I think this misses the point. Once something has been thought of, it cannot be uninvented and may still be used by the automotive industry. As an example, Lotus spent a lot of time and money developing the idea of active suspension in the early eighties. After Williams developed the concept and made it work, the FIA finally got around to outlawing it but, by then, it was appearing on production cars in various forms. The idea was there for the taking.

And so it may prove with these “weighted dampers”. Perhaps we will all enjoy a smoother ride in our burbmobiles of the future, thanks to little weights swinging around in the dampers.

In the meantime, it remains to be seen just how much of an advantage Ferrari and Renault have enjoyed through the use of the weights. If they are suddenly less competitive in the remaining races, we can shake our heads and nod wisely, knowing exactly what has gone wrong.

Of course, it is much more likely that we won’t notice any difference at all.

One of the latest news items is that CVC has sold MotoGP (for a mere $626 million) so that it can own Formula One. This has been announced without fuss on several networks but it raises all sorts of questions in my mind.

For a start, I didn’t even know that it was possible for F1 to be owned (or MotoGP for that matter). But apparently everyone else has known this for ages – at least, no-one seems surprised by the news.

And what exactly is being owned? F1 Racing-Live says that “CVC’s control of formula one is now official” but what the heck does that mean? It cannot be that they are in charge of the rules and regulations – the FIA does that. And the circuits are owned by various concerns around the world, as are the teams. Bernie Ecclestone sells the television rights to a media company every year so maybe this is what they’re talking about.

I googled CVC to find out more about the company. There are a few possibles but the leading contender would appear to be an American Cablevision System; which would fit with the theory that it’s the television rights that are being owned. But it’s only a theory – I’m guessing here.

And how much sense does it make that the owner of the television rights can sell them to anyone they choose, as appears to have happened with MotoGP? Wouldn’t that make a mockery of Bernie’s careful choice in the first place? Or am I being too trusting and all the FIA really care about is how much they can sell the rights for?

I find the whole business rather unsettling. To discover that one’s favorite sport is actually owned and “controlled” by a multi-million dollar and faceless corporation is a bit of a shock. In fact, it has uncomfortable undertones of F1 not being a sport at all but rather some sort of marketing exercise designed to lull the masses to sleep while their pockets are picked. And the masses means you and me, buddy. Oh, brave new world.

As the saying goes, I only ask because I want to know. If anyone out there does actually understand what this is all about, I’d be very grateful if they’d clue me in.

Update on Microsoft to Enter Formula One?:

It’s true. If Scoble says it is, it must be.

I am still fascinated by those upright wings on the BMW Sauber. It may well be that they give the car more stability under braking, as claimed, but they also illustrate the weirdness of modern aerodynamics.

Now that everyman and his dog has a wind tunnel, we see a lot of strange protuberances on F1 cars and it’s hard to see what some of them achieve. Renault even say that they don’t know what the little flip-up ears on the nose of the R26 do; they’re just there in case they help.

So the Renault has its ears, the Ferrari has a nose plug and the McLaren has grown horns, and who can say how they make the car faster? Apparently they do, however, as the Toyota attests; it has variants of all three.

One thing we do know is that all these winglets have to do with keeping the air flow smooth and in the right places. Turbulence causes drag and so the idea is to keep the flow smooth until it reaches the most aerodynamically important part of the car: the rear. Since the FIA have decreed that F1 cars should have flat undertrays until they reach the line of the rear axle, the aerodynamicist is left with a very small area to work with, essentially from the back axle to the rear wing. And, to maximize your tweaks in this area, you need a smooth and predictable flow of air arriving from the front of the car.

The irony is that being first with a new idea does not guarantee success. The most visible instance of this today is the raised nose, first seen on the Tyrrell 019 in 1990.

It was the Tyrrell team’s last hope as they faded towards the back of the F1 grid but it didn’t help them at all. The other teams worked out what the idea was, tried it in their wind tunnels and came out with better implementations. And now all the cars have raised noses while Tyrrell is F1 history.

So why is that raised nose so necessary? Essentially, it’s to do with the business of getting smooth air to the back of the car but also to persuade as much air as possible to go over or around the car, rather than under it. By raising the nose, you allow air to flow straight to the central section above the undertray. At that point, it is separated into two flows, one on each side and controlled by barge boards and winglets. But, by extending the undertray forward a little to form a lip, you can prevent the air from taking the third available route – under the car.

You want as little air under the car as possible; this encourages the formation of a low pressure area there that can then be increased with all your flip-ups and vanes at the rear.

Most of the aerodynamic measures we see at the front of the F1 car are intimately linked with what the air is destined to do at the back. Only the front wing provides large amounts of downforce and this can be altered to balance with the downforce provided by the rear wing.

Aerodynamics is an arcane science and gives rise to some strange formations in F1 cars. I can only guess at what some of the shapes at the rear achieve but we could look at the more obvious stuff in a later post. For the moment, it is sufficient to note that, even if BMW Sauber’s innovation does work, they won’t necessarily be the ones to benefit most from it. Such is life in Formula One.

As usual, this time of year is filled with more rumors of driver changes than you can shake a stick at. Michael Schumacher seems fairly definite for Ferrari next year but the other two hot properties of the moment, Fernando Alonso and Kimi Raikkonen, are still suggested as wild cards. Renault is reported as trying everything to persuade Alonso from his McLaren contract for 2007 and Raikkonen could be with Ferrari or Renault or even stay with McLaren.

Such is the fuss surrounding these three that it’s easy to forget that there are other good drivers available in F1. Jacques Villeneuve made a very good point when he spoke out against the present fashion for throwing new wonder boys into a top F1 seat without them serving an “apprenticeship” in a minor team first. Even the great Ayrton Senna did his time with Toleman.

It will be surprising if Renault and McLaren take the risk of putting Kovalainen and Lewis Hamilton into their second cars, in spite of all the rumors. Far more likely is that one of the smaller teams will take them on.

Which suddenly increases the stock of the older drivers. Jacques himself must be a good buy, considering his experience and continued motivation. And David Coulthard becomes the bargain of the year, being experienced, reliable and quick enough to win grand prix. Had Montoya continued, he too would be an excellent choice for any team.

There are other drivers too that are capable of doing a good job. Webber, Barrichello and Button still have tremendous potential if given a decent chance. And Scott Speed would be an obvious pick if you fancied a minor gamble that could pay off handsomely. He is showing good pace and has the added benefit of bringing American interest with him.

What we tend to forget very quickly is that a solid and honest second driver is always an asset to an F1 team. And it is not always a good idea to have two stars driving your cars; remember how Senna and Prost used to collide occasionally and steal points from each other. Second drivers care about the team, stars care only about winning.

So I don’t see a Schumacher/Raikkonen combination at Ferrari as the dream ticket. It would be interesting, of course, and settle a few arguments about who really is the best, but the team would suffer from the inevitable prima dona squabbles. Far better for the sport would be for the three hot shoes to be in separate teams.

I suspect that, when the dust of the silly season settles, there will be few new faces in F1 and even fewer surprises. Raikkonen will be at Renault, Alonso at McLaren and Schumacher at Ferrari as always. In the second seats will be reliable and proven drivers and any newcomers will be with Toro Rosso, Red Bull, MF1 and Super Aguri. Honda and BMW Sauber might experiment with one car but will keep a wise old head in the other.

It’s the way things usually pan out and it makes perfect sense to me.