The BMW Sauber team has been remarking on how Robert Kubica’s promotion to a race seat has sparked Nick Heidfeld into better performances. Everyone seems quite pleased with his new form but I think it gives pause for thought.

If it is truly Kubica who has spurred Heidfeld to try harder (and I’m not saying that it must be), one has to wonder what his problem was before the young Pole arrived. Often in individual races, we see a driver suddenly speed up when his hopes of a good finish improve through some unexpected event. The inevitable conclusion is that he was not going as fast as he could prior to the event and one has to think that a certain lack of motivation is involved somehow.

It may even be that this is the difference between the competent driver and the great. I do not recall ever seeing Michael Schumacher or Ayrton Senna suddenly put in faster laps as a response to their chances improving; they gave their all throughout a race, regardless of their position.

The occasional relaxation during a race is excusable at least – racing is hard work and only the superhuman can keep giving at maximum level indefinitely. But when a driver displays an unwillingness to really try throughout most of a season, it has to be worrying for the team manager. How is it possible to assess the progress you’re making with the car when the driver is not taking it to its limits? Is the driver really getting the results that the car deserves?

In Nick Heidfeld’s case, I believe the situation is more complex than a simple spur to greater effort resulting from fresh competition from a new teammate. Say what you like about Jacques Villeneuve, but I don’t think he was ever lacking in a fierce determination to compete to the best of his equipment’s ability. I would guess that the BMW’s poor performance before Jacques’ departure was a genuine case of the car not being good enough to compete against the best. And Heidfeld’s sudden improvement is more likely to have resulted from the many changes to the car actually making it better, rather than a fear of being shown up by a quicker teammate.

But I could be wrong. Mario Theissen, the team manager, seems to think that Heidfeld’s speed of late is all thanks to Kubica’s arrival and, if that is true, he should be concerned. Sure, it’s great to have a young driver like Kubica carving through the opposition (and making a few mistakes as well), but the team needs good input from an older and more experienced driver too. If that “wiser head” has a tendency to relax when the pressure is off, how reliable is his input?

I said it would take an engine failure for Michael to lose this one to Alonso. That was sticking my neck out a bit, considering Michael’s Ferrari engine hasn’t let go since 2001. Not that Ferrari have been totally reliable since then – the number two drivers have had their share of engine-related retirements. But, until yesterday, Michael’s luck had ensured that he would not be the one to suffer.

There was plenty of angst over Michael’s sudden departure from the race but the man himself took it very well, it must be admitted. Perhaps he, more than the rest of the Ferrari team, understood how it went some way towards evening up the score for Alonso’s engine failure at Monza. And, although Michael himself has owned defeat in the championship, anything can happen in motor racing and often does; there is one scenario left that could allow Michael to be champion this year. I refuse to name it for fear of jinxing the Brazilian race.

Alonso looked very good in this race. After hauling the Renault into second place, he drove with confidence and precision, never allowing Michael more than a few seconds lead. I doubt that he could have passed the Ferrari if fate had not intervened, but he was certainly keeping his title hopes alive with such a masterful drive.

Jenson Button had another unspectacular but very competent race to finish fourth. And Kimi Raikkonen did wonders with the off-form McLaren to grab fifth spot. But let us not forget that these two and Fisichella owe their good finishes to the Toyota team, to some extent, at least.

The Toyotas are an enigma – how do they manage to throw away so many good chances so consistently? At what point in the Suzuka race did they go from serious contenders to also-rans? Sixth and seventh are poor returns after having stayed with the leaders for the first stint.

Part of the answer is that they were running light and so had to pit before the rest, thereby losing their track positions. And their second set of tires was not as effective as the first. But they seemed to give up without a fight and let themselves be passed by poor strategy alone. In the end, it was another story of bright promise in qualification fading away in the race itself.

Heidfeld got the point for BMW Sauber but it was Kubica who looked good. After the Pole had recovered from his little trip across the gravel, he closed inexorably on his team leader and seemed quite capable of passing him, had he dared to risk it. The fact that he slotted in responsibly behind Heidfeld is another point in his favor; considering the praise that has been heaped upon his shoulders in his short F1 racing career, it is good to see that he is maintaining such a level head and sense of team effort.

Overall, the race proved that there is less to choose between the dry Michelins and the Bridgestone tires than we thought after qualifying. And that is how I like it, with everyone being on pretty much equal rubber so that we can see the true state of competition between the cars and drivers. The result was a race that may have lacked a little overtaking drama (well, let’s face it, we’ve all seen engine failures before) but held us spellbound even so.

And oh, Christijan Albers treated us to an explosive driveshaft failure on his Spyker. Now that’s something of a rarity these days – takes me back to the sixties, it does…

The qualifying sessions for the Chinese Grand Prix have confirmed what we already knew: Michelin’s wet tire has an advantage over Bridgestone’s. With the track very wet from the start and then drying slowly and in patches, the Bridgestone runners were in trouble. Of them all, only Michael Schumacher managed to squeeze into Q3.

He then put the Ferrari into sixth spot on the grid, almost a superhuman feat, given the disadvantage of the tires. Whatever we think of him as a man, there is no doubting his driving skills.

It was Michelin’s day, however, and they made the best of it. The Renaults were the class of the field, easily grabbing the front row, Alonso on pole. Perhaps surprisingly, the Hondas were next up with Barrichello third and Button fourth. Their times were identical but the Brazilian set his before Jenson and so goes ahead.

Then came the McLarens, sandwiching Michael. Raikkonen did very little running until Q3, perhaps confident that he could get the time when he needed it. And, although Pedro de la Rosa spun his McLaren into some elegant manouvers off-track, he will be sufficiently close to his teammate to support him in the race.

The BMW Saubers were next up, Heidfeld ahead of Kubica, and tenth spot was claimed by Robert Doornbos – an excellent effort for his first race for Red Bull.

Now thoughts turn to the race, of course, and that means the weather. The meteorologists seem a little confused and some are predicting dry conditions, others opt for rain. All we can say for sure is that, if it rains, the Renaults will win. If it turns out dry, they will still be in with a very good chance but Michael and Kimi are not likely to make it easy for them.

Highlight of qualifying? That has to be Scott Speed in his Toro Rosso – for a few minutes it looked as though he would make it into Q3. And his time in Q2 would have put him in seventh spot, had he been able to repeat it. As it is, he starts from eleventh – not a bad effort at all.

At the Friday Press Conference for the Shanghai Grand Prix, some of the team managers were in the spotlight. Amongst these was Mario Theissen of BMW Sauber and he gave some interesting insights into BMW’s policy on selecting young drivers.

Q: Mario, we’ve seen you use young drivers this year to remarkable effect: obviously Robert Kubica but also latterly Sebastian Vettel as well. What is BMW’s policy regarding young drivers? You have a staircase of talent with Formula BMW, tell us your policy.

Mario THEISSEN: Well, the general policy with our entire Formula One project is to groom the team in-house rather than take on people from the outside. Obviously, if you want to ramp up (your personnel) by 150 people in one and a half years you have to take on people from the outside, but wherever possible, we take young people on the engineering side as well as on the driving side and develop them on our own. On the drivers’ side, there is a particular resource with Formula BMW. Guys go there at the age of 15 or 16 so we have quite a close relationship, get a very good idea of what they are capable of, and then we have them on our screen as they go up through the other formulae, so I think it’s quite a successful approach to watch young drivers and to evaluate them. That led us to taking on Sebastian Vettel which certainly is extraordinary for a 19-year old guy. Generally, I’m not proposing to take on younger and younger drivers into Formula One but in the case of Sebastian, we thought he’s there, he’s ready to take the job and apparently he’s proved that. If you are successful doing so, I think it’s the best approach you can take. You have to be careful to pick the right guys.

It is true that, in both Robert Kubica and Sebastian Vettel, BMW seem to have chosen two exceptionally talented new drivers. Remembering that Michael Schumacher first came to fame through the Mercedes program for young drivers in the sportscar formula, the wisdom of F1 constructors being involved in lesser formulae is apparent.

This is just a part of my increasing respect for BMW’s efforts in F1. They look like a team that is going places. Their professionalism and design strength is very apparent, they have set realistic goals (and do not become over-excited when they exceed those goals) and their car is the best-looking on the grid (well, it’s important to me – why do you think I supported Minardi from very early on?).

Much of this must be due to Theissen’s organizational skills. I particularly like his realism in admitting quite openly that one of their two podium finishes this year had a lot of luck involved. He is being cautious about the team’s chances in China, too, pointing out that it is a very different type of track from Monza, where they did so well. It’s such a sensible attitude – if they do particularly well, he can give a sly wink as if to say, “Well, you didn’t expect me to tell you we had something special awaiting, did you?” And, if the cars finish out of the points, he can always say that he told us so.

Elsewhere, Friday practice in Shanghai proved very little, as usual. The test drivers were quick, Alex Wurz (Williams) and Sebastian Vettel battling it out for quickest time. Ferrari look to be in a strong position with Renault holding their cards close to their chests. We shall see the true position tomorrow in the qualifying sessions.