I was not going to deal specifically with each launch of the new F1 cars since the press are covering them quite adequately, but I find that I have been won over by the BMW Sauber site. Their car is just so pretty!

The new Ferrari is being talked about incessantly, the McLaren is parading around to much admiration (sorry, Ron, I disagree with your drivers – that color scheme is just plain ugly), even the Renault is pushing its way into the news (and it will take a while to get used to that dark blue). But no-one is taking much notice of the BMW so it seems allowable that I devote a post to my new enthusiasm. Take a look at this photo of the F1.07 in action and tell me it doesn’t look great – the white allows us to see the true shape of the car and the blue trim has been tastefully blended into the whole design.

The finish on the car is excellent as well – easily up to Ferrari standards. But the real reason for this post is to parade the fact that I have now done my homework and know all about zero keels, single keels, V keels etc. Craig Scarborough has written a very good article that explains everything but, in a nutshell, the whole business of keels is caused by the necessity of raising the nose to get improved aerodynamics.

Raise the nose and you find difficulties in attaching the lower wishbones of the front suspension – suddenly there is empty space where there used to be chassis. Various solutions have been tried, most involving building extensions (known misleadingly as keels) downwards to allow attachment of the suspension. The single keel is a triangular section extending down from the chassis whereas Renault knocked a hole in the triangle to allow more airflow, thereby inventing the V keel. But the zero keel, apparently first used on the Spyker cars, gets rid of the keel altogether by angling the suspension upwards to attach to the chassis at an angle. This can be seen quite clearly on the F1.07 – note how the front suspension arms droop downwards from the body to the wheels.

The benefits of the zero keel are purely aerodynamic in that the airflow is not interrupted by any extension to the chassis. There are disadvantages – the angled suspension allows for less adjustment to suit different conditions – but these are compensated for by the improved aerodynamics. At least, almost all the teams seem to think so, only Renault sticking with their V keel.

BMW Sauber have had their zero keel for a while now so they should know all about it. The changes they have made are mainly in the design of the front and rear wings, lower and more carefully shaped rear bodywork and a new quick shift gearbox. The fancy flip-ups attached to the sidepod cooling towers don’t even get a mention, however.

Take a look at this photograph taken from above the car – in spite of all the winglets and protuberances demanded by aerodynamics, it still forms a harmonious overall design.

An old F1 saying is that what looks right, is right. If that is true, then the BMW has a very good chance in 2007. I wish the team well, although I’m still betting on Button for the championship.

Ron Dennis has admitted that McLaren has a rather “cold, not particularly user-friendly and slightly aloof” image in the eyes of some F1 fans and is determined to do something about it. I have heard that assessment from many people but my own feeling is that they are efficient and concentrated, rather than unfriendly.

So what is the problem? Ron Dennis himself seems very approachable and good humored, although he is far more businesslike than his predecessor, the cuddly Teddy Mayer. The Germanic ruthlessness of Mercedes might be rubbing off on the team but I doubt it; Norbert Haug is the jovial face of Mercedes in F1 and hardly fits with any perception of the company as an austere and humorless juggernaut.

I think the answer lies in McLaren’s success. From the moment Ron took over from Teddy, the team assumed a new aura of machinelike efficiency and it was not long before they were dominating the sport. There have been ups and downs in terms of winning races but the company’s success has been evident in their glittering facilities, the expansion into road cars and the huge resources poured into the team. This financial strength and the share deals that so often grab the headlines give the impression of an increasingly vast organization, a faceless corporation that wins through cold efficiency.

It may be very unfair but it is the perception of many F1 fans. And they have a point. Whilst F1 racing remains the main focus of the company, it is quite clear that Ron also enjoys the corporate deals that have made McLaren such a force to be reckoned with. And we should be in awe of his ability to shift so easily from hard-headed business manager to F1 team boss to driver’s confidant and advisor. To have achieved what he has and yet still remain approachable is no mean feat.

But the downside is that his success in building a corporation affects the way people see the team. Renault are an example of how to avoid such an impression; although we know that the car manufacturer is huge, the team looks very independent and separate, mainly because the company picked as flamboyant a manager as Flavio Briatore and allowed him to get on with it. We can still see the Renault team as a small group of passionate and dedicated enthusiasts – the bean counters are hidden.

Ron Dennis is McLaren, however, and so everything that the company is rubs off on the team. It’s back to front in terms of development but we see McLaren as the boardroom gone racing. And no matter how friendly Ron is in interviews, that will not go away.

Consider the contrast with Williams. Frank is a miserable blighter and does not mince his words, Patrick Head is pretty straightforward too, yet we still see the team as a small, independent group of F1 fanatics. There is no massive corporation looming behind them and so Williams preserves that air of the little guy, the David battling the Goliaths. If you want to be popular with the fans, that’s the image to go for; we all love an underdog.

Personally, I think Ron should take no notice and continue as he has always done. When you’re winning, it really doesn’t matter how people perceive you. And it’s far too late to change things now.

Besides, the McLaren launch of their new car was hardly the way to pretend to a new, cuddly image. If you can afford to take over Valencia to demonstrate your car, we’re going to be hard to convince that you’re really a little team of racing enthusiasts.

Incidentally, almost unnoticed, the BMW Sauber team have launched their new car too. As usual, it’s the prettiest of the bunch (in spite of the interesting cooling towers sprouting from the top of the sidepods) and you can watch a video of the presentation by going to the website. In fact, McLaren could learn a thing or two from BMW Sauber’s web design – it’s easily the best out there and doesn’t demand payment before you get access to the real goodies. If Ron wants to be seen as more friendly, he could start by offering for free what is really just advertising for his team. And forget all this “accredited press” nonsense – all they ever do is regurgitate press releases whereas some of us actually put some work and creativity into what we do.

Good old Mario Theissen is keeping me going with press releases, it seems. Today he is outlining BMW’s approach to F1, insisting that they will take the radical route, in similar fashion to Honda’s.

That was what I liked about BMW Sauber in 2006 – they were always experimenting (I’m still trying to work out what those vertical wings were supposed to achieve) and unafraid of controversy (as with the flexi-wing saga). In fact, Theissen seems to have discovered the secret of success in F1 – to remain a small team even though owned by a manufacturer.

It’s only an impression but one gets the feeling with McLaren, for instance, that Mercedes looms ever larger over them. The German giant must be getting very impatient for success and I can see the rumors of a takeover proving correct in the future. Toyota and, to a lesser extent, Honda have their company management looking over their shoulders and even Ferrari is becoming more a division of FIAT.

BMW seem to be following the example of Renault; although the French board of directors is happy when their team wins, they do not appear to interfere and the team looks more like Briatore’s than Renault’s. Back-to-back championships show that this is the way to go, allowing the team to make decisions and react to changing situations as quickly as only small teams can.

The odd one out in all this is Red Bull, of course. It seems a strange combination of small team and huge company, involved in F1 for the prestige and marketing value, yet with an investment so massive that one wonders how it can possibly profit from the operation. I suspect that the real reason behind Red Bull’s ownership of two teams is that the boss, Dietrich Mateschitz, loves motor sport. And, when you have as much money as he does, who cares if millions get spent on winning a few races?

Mateschitz isn’t the first to spend a fortune on his passion – Lord Hesketh nearly bankrupted himself in the seventies doing exactly that. And Benetton had a fling before selling out to Renault and going back to knitting sweaters. Running two teams seems a little over the top, however, and I wonder how long such a venture can continue. It remains to be seen whether Adrian Newey can design a car that justifies all that expense.

Returning to BMW, it does seem that they are getting things right. Theissen’s caution in setting goals is the one fly in the ointment, however. Consider this statement:

“The problem is as soon as you achieve something, expectations raise quicker than you can follow,” he said. “And, to be realistic, we have always said that we want to achieve podiums out of our own strength in 2007 – and that hasn’t changed.

“We had one podium out of our own strength in 2006, which was Monza due to a superb job of the aerodynamicists. And this year we need to do that more often. That is our target.

“And then if some cars in front of us fail, then we have to be there and maybe get something more. But it would not be realistic to win a race out of our own strength.”

Realism is a fine thing and there is little enough of that in most teams’ hopes for the future. But it wouldn’t hurt to have a go at winning. BMW had a couple of podium finishes last year – why not try for the top step this time round?

BMW’s Mario Theissen has come out strongly against customer cars being allowed in F1. The rules are due to change in 2008 to allow this and Theissen is looking beyond the current storm brewing over Toro Rosso’s and Super Aguri’s plans to run something very like customers cars in 2007.

His point is that the rule change could result in a reduction of the number of constructors, with only about six manufacturers producing chassis and supplying them to ‘B’ teams. This would allow manipulation of the championship by concentration of effort on one driver’s car and other drivers within the constructor’s orbit being ordered to support him.

It is certainly one way things could turn out but history would not suggest its likelihood. In the seventies there were innumerable customer car teams, some of which, like Williams, were to go on to become important constructors in their own right, while others fell by the wayside. There was no apparent collusion between constructors and customers; you could buy a McLaren M23, for instance, and be reasonably competitive but there was no support from the supplier – you were on your own as regards development and maintenance.

Of course, the situation is different now that big manufacturers are involved and it may well be that each constructor will effectively run four cars. But, if they are all using the tactics suggested by Theissen to push one driver forward, it evens out and not much has changed. With the extinction of small constructors (which is inevitable in the future mapped out by the FIA), the fight will be between only half a dozen manufacturers anyway.

So, if our hypothetical six manufacturers are all putting their support into one driver, that leaves us with six guys fighting for the championship. Hey, that’s an improvement over the present – there were only two drivers in with a chance this year.

The real problem is not the customer car rule; this is just a bone thrown to the little guys to suggest that the FIA really means its stated intention to keep small teams in F1. Now that the FIA and manufacturers are in bed together, the rules change to suit the big guys and it will become impossible for genuine independents to compete. If customer cars were to remain illegal, the only result would be that you have the same six manufacturers racing but no small teams. Which would mean 12-car grids…

Whether the FIA and the manufacturers like it or not, small teams have always been the lifeblood of F1. All innovation comes from them and they represent the true drama of the sport – the David against Goliath scenario. In the past such teams have dominated in spite of the rules being weighted against them but I fear that the latest proposed changes will exterminate the little guy altogether. F1 is to become a testing bed for road cars and anyone who wants to compete for the sheer joy of racing had better look for another formula.

Customer cars offer the last lifeline to smaller teams. They will be getting a secondhand product without all the latest tweaks available to the works team but it’s better than nothing. And there will always remain the faint possibility that some bright spark will find a way to make the chassis perform better than the supplier’s cars. Let the rule stay, say I.