Here’s a strange little news item from F1 Racing-live: Honda’s Nick Fry has apparently criticized BMW Sauber for the way they intend to use their third driver, Sebastian Vettel, in 2007. He thinks that having Vettel drive the cars during practice will annoy both contracted race drivers as they lose valuable time on the circuit.

He may have a point. But why would he bother to say so? If a close competitor is making a tactical error, surely it would be best to grin and keep quiet? Admittedly, Nick “expressed delight” that BMW should make such an error but it makes no sense that he should announce it to the world, thereby giving his rivals the opportunity to realize and fix their mistake, if that’s what it is.

It reminds me of Flavio Briatore’s outburst against McLaren earlier this year. That made no sense at the time unless it was viewed purely as a chance to grab some attention during a quiet week for F1. Perhaps Nick Fry has subscribed to the Briatore school of public relations and the belief that any publicity is good publicity.

It seems a waste of words to me, however. In view of the fact that I have suggested Honda as a good bet for the championship next year, I find it slightly worrying that their team manager should indulge in such pointless statements. Shouldn’t he be far too busy preparing for next season to be worrying about what BMW Sauber are up to?

Maybe I’m just old fashioned but I like the quieter style of Ron Dennis. You don’t see him courting publicity or criticizing the way others run their teams – he lets them make their mistakes and gets on with his own business. Did you see any response from him to Flavio’s critique of his motorhome, for instance?

Of course, Nick Fry’s words were probably spoken in an unguarded moment and some journalist, desperate for some news in the off season, has run with them. And yes, I’m getting a post out of them too. But at least I didn’t headline it “Honda Slams BMW!”

After rumors that Renault might be considering an exit from F1 now that they have achieved their goals of the constructor’s and driver’s championships, CEO Carlos Ghosn has declared their intention to stay for good, according to a report by F1 Racing-live. Which is all very well except that the rumor actually dates from about a year ago and was one of the reasons for Alonso moving to McLaren. Doth the lady protest too much?

It’s the timing that looks odd. No-one was suggesting that Renault was about to leave and everything is set up for next season with Flavio Briatore remaining in charge and the drivers signed up – not even a hint of an early exit there. Is it possible that Renault wants to avoid the mistake of last year when they left their intentions unclear until it was too late to retain Alonso?

That seems the most likely explanation. Perhaps it is only my cynicism regarding manufacturers’ durability in F1 that leads me to read between the lines. Consider this, for example:

“For Renault, this is an investment – and an investment that aids the growth of the Renault brand and Renault’s products,” said company CEO Carlos Ghosn.

He added that Alonso’s back-to-back crown ‘justifies the investment’ of the Boulogne-Billancourt based French manufacturer.

All very true, although it does remind me that I have seen some criticism recently of Renault’s failure to capitalize on the marketing potential inherent in winning the championships. The problem is really hinted at in that statement that their double win “justifies the investment” they have put into F1. And what if they don’t win the titles for a few years? How can they justify such an enormous expenditure then?

It really doesn’t matter what statements are made now – if success begins to elude the company, the bean counters’ voices will get louder and, sooner or later, management is going to have to listen. No organization can continue to pour money into a project that is providing no benefits in return. Maserati found that out and so did Alfa Romeo, Lancia, Jaguar, Porsche and BRM.

The promise to stay “for good” is not only doubtful, it’s unnecessary. Renault need only to assure us that they are here for another year and we will go away happy. And, if they really want to stay forever, maybe they should be looking at FIAT’s solution to the problem – get a team like Ferrari that lives for racing only, support it with money and technical assistance, and let it win the honors for you.

And the rumors of Nissan’s desire to get involved in F1 are the perfect opportunity for Renault to do just that. Since Renault have a 40% stake in the Japanese company, they could bring Nissan into the game in a joint effort with their team, sharing the costs and the marketing advantages, and gradually allowing the team an independence similar to Ferrari’s. I guess the cars could be called Nissan-Renaults – that way, honor would be satisfied.

The bean counters might get a better night’s sleep, too.

Bernie Ecclestone has been interviewed by The Times newspaper regarding his opinion on how things will go in F1 next year. There are no great surprises, but “Mr. Formula One” has a few words to say to Jenson Button, my tip for the title. To be champion, Button needs to display the drive and commitment so evident in Michael Schumacher, says Bernie.

“Michael has given up so much to achieve what he has achieved,” Ecclestone said. “He is dedicated to what he is and puts himself under an awful lot of pressure. He’ll win a race and next day start testing. I’m not sure whether Jenson is prepared to do that.

“I would say that Jenson is much like the old-time drivers. The Graham Hill type of driver with all the talent that they need, except nowadays you’ve got to be dedicated, too.

“The biggest thing that can help Honda is Jenson,” he said. “He needs to get stuck into it and stuck into them, making sure they deliver him the equipment to make him a consistent winner.”

Nothing much to argue with there, although I sometimes wonder if Michael is really so much more dedicated than the other drivers. Everyone knows the level of commitment and fitness required these days and I suspect that most of the drivers work just as hard as does Michael. They would be fools to do otherwise and none of them strike me as lacking in intelligence.

There is no doubt that Michael does have something special, however; you don’t win seven world titles without that. If I were asked to name the difference, I would have to say just two words: Flavio Briatore.

It was Briatore who saw Michael’s potential and gave him everything he needed to fulfill it, including the adoration and obedience of the Benetton team. By the time the German went to Ferrari, he knew exactly what was required to win consistently. He supplied the talent, determination and fitness to succeed as an individual but he also insisted on the same level of commitment from his team. In effect, he created a new Ferrari team by bringing in the personnel he needed and concentrating their minds on the task ahead.

But it was Briatore who gave Michael the understanding of what it takes to win: the undivided support of the team. And one suspects that Bernie is right in doubting that Jenson has the monomania necessary to achieve that – he seems too nice a guy. At the moment the Honda team are betting on both horses, giving Button and Barrichello equal attention without preference. I wonder whether this can be the right approach for a team on the edge of success but not quite there yet.

So it comes down to the old argument between having two star drivers or a clear number one and number two. Looking at Michael’s success, we would have to say that the second system is more effective. Pour your energies into the faster driver and keep the second man as back-up if needed, that is the way to go. Equality brings competition between team members and can result in the loss of a championship, as Williams discovered when both Alan Jones and Carlos Reutemann were their drivers in 1981, splitting the points and losing out ultimately to Nelson Piquet (who was a definite number 1 in the Brabham team).

Can Button persuade Honda to favor him over Barrichello? Perhaps if Button has a very special race in Brazil this weekend, he might achieve it. But Rubens isn’t going to like that one bit…

The BBC has a page of quotations on Michael Schumacher’s retirement. It makes interesting reading, particularly these examples:

“Where Schumacher cannot draw the right line is on track. He cannot see when he crosses the line between tough but fair, and ruthless but foul.

“That is exacerbated by his total belief that he cannot be wrong. He has a default mode in the car: if you’re going to pass him, he will drive you off the road. He even did it to me as a team-mate.”
Martin Brundle, former Benetton team-mate

“We will miss him a little bit as a driver. We will miss him a lot in the football matches.”
Jarno Trulli, Toyota driver

“The last stars I saw in F1 were (Ayrton) Senna and, even if he won only one world championship, Jacques Villeneuve. If we want, we could also add (Juan Pablo) Montoya. Now, instead, we have only champions.”
Flavio Briatore, Renault boss, who led the Benetton team with which Schumacher won his first two titles

The last two are notable for what they don’t say, Trulli shying away from assessment of Michael’s career and Briatore making a point by omission of Michael from his list of stars. And I am aware that I have chosen three quotes against the man whereas there are plenty that support him.

I have always admitted that I am no fan of Michael Schumacher’s; I can see the driving skills and the smooth public utterances but, somehow, I have never liked him. Aware that my view is bound to be colored by this dislike, I often try to define what causes it. And I think it goes right back to the beginning of Michael’s career in F1.

His first race was for Jordan at Spa in 1991 and we were all astounded that he managed to put the car into fourth spot on the grid. In those days we were all rooting for Jordan, the little team that seemed about to beat the big boys. So Michael started with an enormous amount of goodwill behind him and we were sorry to see him retire from the race with mechanical failure.

But then the rot set in. Flavio Briatore came along from Benetton with a wad of money in his hand and Michael went with him without a backward glance. Poor Eddie Jordan fought long and hard to keep his discovery but he was always going to lose against the Benetton financial muscle. Michael drove for Benetton from that moment and the rest is history.

It was a hard pill to swallow at the time, however. And, when Benetton started to give Michael everything he wanted, including compliant teammates, it just made things worse. By the time Michael drove into Damon Hill at Adelaide in 1994, thereby securing the first Schumacher championship, I could see the incident only as bad sportsmanship. Michael had wrecked his car through a miscalculation and had taken out his rival when the chance presented itself.

The same goes for every dubious incident that followed and there were many. If Schumacher was involved, my mind was already made up. I suspect that there are many who feel the same way (including, it would seem, the man who stole Michael from Jordan).

So it’s true that I never gave Michael much of a chance to redeem himself. But it is also true that he kept providing new instances where his sportsmanship looked very questionable. And that, if I’m honest, is why I do not consider him a great champion and why I hope that Alonso beats him again this year.

I can’t help it, I have to say it: Go Fernando!