Nico Rosberg, Mercedes, Nurburgring, 2011

A fully enclosed cockpit canopy is among three potential solutions being considered to improve driver protection.

Renault’s James Allison, the new head of the Technical Regulations Working Group at the F1 Teams’ Association, described the three potential solution being evaluated in today’s press conference at the Nurburgring.

Allison said: “This is something that’s been under discussion for a few Technical Working Group meetings now.

“We’re looking to try to look after the driver’s head, both from large scale things like tyres and also small scale things like the very unfortunate incident that Felipe [Massa] suffered [in 2009].

“There are a few suggestions around: one of them was looking into a fully enclosed canopy.

“Another one was looking into a visor-type where it’s still open above the driver’s head but he has a visor in front of him.

“And then there is a third type of proposal as well, where there isn’t a see-through windscreen at all but there is like a roll (bar) structure in front of the driver that would anyway deflect any big objects.

“All those things are still in fairly early discussion and you would have seen from what the FIA proposed, published recently, that they are showing some of the very early research that’s being done into the feasibility and practicality of this type of solution, but there are a lot of questions to answer before we can bring it to a practical solution.

“The closed canopy would have an aerodynamic effect – not a bad one, it would be easier to manage the airflow around a closed canopy than an open one – but there are all sorts of other things to discuss, like egress in the event of an accident, keeping the canopy clean, for example when it might get covered in oil and the like, so each of the proposed solutions has advantages and disadvantages and we need to do the basic research to find out what is the best way forward.”

The FIA has begun research into reducing the dangers of objects striking a driver. In May it conducted tests by firing an F1 wheel and tyre assembly into a fighter jet canopy, which is usually designed to withstand impacts with birds.

Formula Two racer Henry Surtees was killed in July 2009 after being struck by a wheel which had become detached from another car.

The FIA increased the number of wheel tethers at each corner of an F1 car to two this year. In Sergio Perez’s crash at Monaco, where an impact of 80g was recorded, all four wheels remained attached to the car, although the right-front outer tyre was torn from the rim.

Mercedes Norbert Haug said that if canopies were to be adopted, they should also be considered for other forms of single-seater racing.

Image © Mercedes

The spring hit Massa's helmet with a force that can only de described as terrifying

The stories of Massa’s accident three days have been everywhere. But how much do we really understand about how hard a blow Massa suffered when he was struck by that spring?

F1 Fanatic guest writer Kareem Shaya tries to put the crash into perspective.

In all the discussion of Felipe Massa’s qualifying accident at the Hungarian Grand Prix, there have been few real efforts to quantify what happened. Massa was hit hard enough to be knocked out and suffer a fractured skull, and that’s essentially all we know. So let’s figure it out. How bad is it, exactly, if an 800-gram coil spring hits you in the head at 160 mph?

The punch it packs is worse than being shot. Bullets are deadly because they penetrate the body, but in terms of kinetic energy, most don’t hold a candle to what hit Massa.

Below is a list of kinetic energies of common projectiles. The bullet energies assume point-blank range (and are calculated using numbers from Alpine Armoring). All the energies are calculated using the old kinetic energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity^2 formula you learned in school.

- 100 mph fastball from Nolan Ryan: 145 joules
- Barry Bonds’ swing (33 oz. bat at 70 mph): 458 joules
- 9mm handgun: 513 joules
- .44 Magnum handgun: 1,510 joules
- The spring that hit Massa (800 grams at 160 mph): 2,046 joules
- AK-47 (7.62mm round): 2,599 joules
- 12 gauge shotgun slug: 3,580 joules
- The wheel that killed Henry Surtees (an estimated 12 kg at 120 mph): 17,267 joules

Before we talk about those figures, it’s worth remembering that the Massa and Surtees accidents were real-world situations, and as such, the numbers above may be imprecise. Massa was moving at 160 mph, but if the spring was traveling at high speed in the same direction as his Ferrari, or if it ricocheted off of his car before striking him, the estimate of 2,046 joules will be too high. If, for instance, we change the spring’s collision speed to 120 mph, its kinetic energy drops about 44% to a still-frightening 1,151 joules. The same caveats apply to the figures on Henry Surtees’ accident. Please suggest any adjustments in the comments.

With that in mind, let’s consider the baseball examples. Bullets focus their energy on a tiny area, which is why they would penetrate something like a driver’s helmet. The contact patch of a baseball or a bat, by contrast, would be close to that of a coil spring, and that makes for some shocking comparisons.

By the numbers above, Massa would have been 14 times better off being hit by Nolan Ryan fastball. He would have been four times better off letting Barry Bonds take a full-force swing at his head. For that matter, in terms of sheer energy, he’d have been better off letting Barry Bonds hit him in the head at the same instant that someone shot him point-blank with Dirty Harry’s gun.

It’s simply incredible that a helmet can turn that into a survivable injury, but the massive energy of Henry Surtees’ accident — nearly five times that of a 12 gauge shotgun slug and more than eight times worse than the blow to Massa’s head — reminds us that there’s a limit to the protection that one or two inches of padding can provide. Being hit in the head with a wheel moving at race speeds is easily deadly, helmet or no helmet.

If the same thing causes a death in F1′s future, the result may well be a rush to implement closed cockpits. And if that day should come, let’s not pretend to have learned something we didn’t already know today. Cockpit covers may or may not make sense, but if we are against them now, we shouldn’t be waiting for a death to change our minds.

Update from Keith: We have had further good news about Massa’s condition today, including a quote from one doctor who confirmed the driver has now opened his left eye and can see. The doctor described it as “morphologically healthy”, indicating the eye is healthy and has integrity, with no tissue damage. This raises hopes that he may be able to return to the cockpit in the future.

Read more

• No easy answers to safety questions posed by Massa and Surtees crashes
• Confusion over Felipe Massa’s condition following “life threatening” injury claim
• Felipe Massa crashes after being struck by debris during qualifying (Video)

With refuelling gone in 2010 we'll see a return to super-quick three second pit stops

In October 1993 the first meeting of the FIA World Motor Sports Council announced that refuelling would be re-introduced into F1 for the 1994 season.

Earlier this week the same body confirmed refuelling will be banned in 2010 – leading to a mixed reaction from fans.

I’ve been surprised how many comments have been posted here complaining that the banning of refuelling will make F1 less entertaining in 2010. I’m convinced it won’t – here’s why.

The wrong rule

Refuelling was brought back into F1 at the beginning of 1994 as the sports’ governing body scrambled frantically to find a way of spicing up ‘the show’. The 1992 season and much of the early part of 1993 saw some decidedly unimpressive racing.

The reason for this was simple: Williams had created a car that was whole seconds faster than the opposition at most circuits. At one race in 1992 the closest car in qualifying to Nigel Mansell’s FW14B was a staggering 2.7s slower. Williams enjoyed a comparable margin of superiority in 1993, though as the season went on McLaren and Benetton began to narrow the performance gap.

It was the norm at this time to see the Williams cars lock out the front row of the grid and disappear off into the distance at the start of the race. This did not make for entertaining racing, and the FIA began pushing for the reintroduction of refuelling in the hope it would cause more changes in the running order.

Bringing back refuelling in 1994 was a knee-jerk reaction to their superiority. As it happened, come the start of the 1994 season Williams’ performance advantage had been completely eroded anyway.

Had refuelling been used in 1992 and 1993, would it have made any difference to the extent of Williams’ dominance? Absolutely not. Their cars were capable of winning races by whole minutes or more.

The death of strategy?

Still, there are many fans who enjoy the strategic dimension refuelling brings to F1. Should they be concerned about its extinction?

I say not – drivers will still have to make pit stops to use both types of tyre, and this will open up some interesting strategic avenues that could also have a positive affect on the racing.

With no fuel levels to worry about drivers will have much greater strategic freedom. We could well see some drivers nursing their tyres throughout the race on a one-stop strategy, while others make two or three changes of tyres. Alternatively, drivers could adjust their strategy on-the-fly, abandoning plans to make extra pit stops in a bid to keep track position.

This was a common occurrence until refuelling killed the practice at the end of 1993. At Portugal that year Michael Schumacher scored a fine second Grand Prix victory at Estoril after deciding not to make his planned second stop for tyres, holding Alain Prost back.

The flying pit stop returns

With drivers no longer taking fuel on board during pit stops we will see the return of ultra-quick tyre changes.

Will any of the teams be able to beat the current record for a four-tyre change? The mark stands at a scarcely-believed 3.2 seconds, set by Benetton on Riccardo Patrese’s car in the 1993 Belgian Grand Prix.

Setup changes

At present drivers have to set up their cars to work between weight of around 610kg (minimal fuel) to 680kg (maximum fuel).

Next year that 70kg spread could double or more. We will in all likelihood see drivers with better-performing cars at different stages during the race. Given the limited setup time drivers have at a race weekend, getting race setup spot-on at the expense of perfecting a one-lap low-fuel qualifying setup could play dividends.

Again, this has produced some wonderful races in the past. Nigel Mansell won the 1989 Hungarian Grand Prix from 12th on the grid in a dry race because he’d nailed his race-day setup. The following year Alain Prost won at Mexico from 13th in much the same way.

Winning on the track

Above all else, banning refuelling places a much greater onus on drivers to overtake their rivals on the track.

They will no longer have the option to delay trying to overtake a rival on the assumption that they can pass them by making a later pit stop for fuel.

Refuelling has provided the odd moment of interest in the 15 years since it was re-introduced: Schumacher’s win at Hungary in 1998 for example. But I have seen far more races rendered dull by drivers ‘passing in the pits’ instead of on the track, or ruined entirely by faulty refuelling rigs.

I’m delighted to see a return to real racing in 2010. As ever I’d like to know what you think and it would be particularly interesting to see if those who started watching F1 before 1994 see things differently.

Read more

• A brief history of pit stops in F1 (video)
• Two good reasons to ban refuelling
• The cost-cutting plans: refuelling ban
• How new rules will change 2010 F1 cars

Was this just a freak accident in a championship that engineers crashes for the entertainment of its fans – or are there lessons here for Formula 1 too?

Racing for the lead with the chequered flag in sight, Edwards was tipped into a spin by rival Brad Keselowski, then launched in a terrifying flip by the onrushing car of Ryan Newman. The only thing keeping the 99 car from landing in the crowd was a row of safety fencing, and despite that seven fans were injured by a shower of debris.

F1 and NASCAR are as different as two motor sports can be. So it’s tempting to conclude that F1 could never see something similar to Edwards’ crash: the cars don’t race so close to each other, and there is much more run-off between the track and the spectators.

Perhaps. But the welcome sight this year of cars being able to race each other more closely raises the possibility of such a crash happening in F1 – consider Robert Kubica and Jarno Trulli’s collision at Shanghai.

And Bernie Ecclestone is increasingly keen on adding street races to the calendar. Again, this is no bad thing, as it may allow spectators to get closer to the action – but that brings an obvious added danger.

Among NASCAR commentators reaction to the crash has centred on the wisdom of allowing drivers to ‘block’ (i.e. defend) their position. This has occasionally been a cause of concern in F1 as well, with driver being allowed to get away with some manoeuvres that seem exceptionally dangerous – Michael Schumacher’s infamous swerve at Mika Hakkinen at Spa in 2000 being an especially infamous example.

When the FIA is so preoccupied with improving safety by cutting cornering speeds and neutering circuits, it defies belief when drivers are allowed to go unpunished for such actions.

But in NASCAR’s case I don’t think driving standards is the real culprit. This crash again questions the wisdom of ‘restrictor plate racing’. These devices are mandated by NASCAR at larger ovals like Talladega and Daytona to limit speeds but also guarantee the racing pack remains close.

The Talladega race has spawned a cult following among fans eager to witness ‘The Big One’ – a huge multi-car collision that inevitably occurs, often involving dozens of cars. But this time it was fans that paid the price – and had Edwards’ car gone a metre or two one way or another the carnage might have been unimaginable.

Since Ayrton Senna’s death 15 years ago today, F1 has seized every opportunity to examine and improve its safety preparations. It’s important that includes observing how other motor sports handle major accidents like this, and how well their safety procedures coped.

Had NASCAR taken note of lessons learned by rival championships a decade ago, it might not have lost one of its most famous drivers, Dale Earnhardt, in a last-lap crash at Daytona 2001.

Perhaps the Edwards crash couldn’t happen in F1. But safety isn’t about leaving things to chance.

Fernando Alonso has criticised F1's tyre rules

This weekend the drivers will once again have to cope with the ‘super soft’ tyre.

It made for interesting racing in Australia – but should F1 be resorting to gimmicks like forcing drivers to use un-competitive tyres?

Drivers have been required to use two different compounds of tyre per race since 2007. But this year the gap in performance between the tyres has been widened.

So in Australia the super-soft tyres were falling apart after a couple of laps, and at Sepang the drivers struggled to get the hard tyres up to working temperature.

The rule was introduced partly to add interest to the racing, and partly out of a desire to maintain interest in how the teams were using their tyres following the end of the tyre war after 2006. It was previously used in the now-defunct Champ Car series, and the Indy Car championship has resurrected the idea this year.

Fernando Alonso has been scathingly critical of the rule in the run-up to this weekend’s race:

We expressed our concerns after Australia, after the accident of Robert Kubica and Sebastian Vettel – it was due to the difference of the speed. He tried to overtake, Vettel was not in control of the car with that tyre, you cannot brake, you cannot turn-in, you cannot do anything. And then Robert had a big crash after that because he damaged the car. And then we expressed our concerns and now in the third race we have the same tyre at a worse circuit. This is something that we need to change immediately.

I think the super-soft on this type of circuit with long, high-speed corners. Super-soft in Turn 1 will be destroyed and in Turn 10 there will be no more left tyre.

One [tyre] will be too hard and one will be too soft. The right tyre is at home! This soft tyre is at home and this happened in Australia as well. And the understanding that this is for a better show, for overtaking. As I said, for better show, maybe we can pick up our number and then whoever picks up number 15 can put on wet tyres, or whatever, and it is a better show and its funny. Like this is not funny.

Although I enjoyed the extra dimension the tyre tactics brought to the first races, I wonder if the artificiality of having races so heavily influenced by tyres might start to become repetitive after a while.

And as Alonso says, it does F1′s reputation no good to expose it to ridicule by having such wide variations in tyre performance purely because of a quirk in the rules.

Has F1 opted for gimmickry over real racing? Is this the first step down a slippery slope that leads to other forms of regulated race-fixing like success ballast and reverse grids?

Cast your vote above – and have your say in the comments.

Read more

• Bridgestone to widen difference between tyres in 2009 – but how we know?
• Bigger tyre performance gaps in 2009
• F1 will get ‘red tyre rule’
• Debate: F1 better since end of tyre war?
• Tyre-gate for China? (Forum)

The safety car rules aren't as clear-cut as we thought

The final 2009 F1 rules published by the FIA a few weeks ago revealed that the much-derided ‘pit lane closure’ rule, which ruined several drivers’ races in 2007 and 2008, is finally being dropped.

But today the it has revealed that instead of returning to the pre-2007 safety car rules, drives (and fans) will have a new complication to get to grips with.

In 2009, whenever a safety car is deployed, drivers heading to the pits will not be allowed to do so until a minimum amount of time has elapsed. This is to prevent drivers racing back to the pits at a time when the track is supposed to be neutralised for safety reasons.

Charlie Whiting explained the change to the rules:

The rule introduced in 2007 was a bad one, and we’ve gone back to the 2006 regulations. The only difference is we intend to implement a minimum time back to the pits.

When we deploy the safety car, the message will go to all the cars, which will then have a “safety car” mode on their ECUs. As soon as that message gets to the car, it’ll know where it is on the circuit, and it’ll calculate a minimum time for the driver to get back to the pits. The driver will have to respect this and the information will be displayed on his dashboard.

If you remember, the reason we closed the pit entry was to remove the incentive for the driver to come back to his pit quickly. That’s gone now, as you won’t be able to reach the pits any quicker than your dashboard display allows you to.

But how will the drivers treat this time limit?

Is this actually going to work?

If the FIA imagines the drivers will back off and cruise to the pits when the safety car is deployed, I think they’re mistaken. The drivers will want to cross the pit lane entry line the second their counters tick over to zero and as close to the car in front as possible. The best way to do that is to race back to the pits and only slow down once they’re in sight of the pit lane entrance.

There is potential for this to go wrong. What happens if a driver who is rushing back to the pits comes another who is not? This could be especially problematic in wet conditions or on narrow street circuits. What if one team chooses to use one of its driver to delay several of their rivals? How much of a penalty will drivers get if they break the rule – and could it ever be worth them deliberately breaking the rule in order to gain track position?

I’m not sure this is the best solution but it is was always going to be a compromise and it’s certainly better than the previous approach of penalising drivers for pitting ‘illegally’, and the many problems that caused.

Happily, with refuelling during the race finally being banned in 2010, the problem should go away next year.

How well do you think the new safety car rule will work?

Safety car periods should no longer bring controversial pit penalties in 2009

Alianora la Canta’s rigorous analysis of the 2009 sporting rules turned up a surprising and un-announced change. The ‘pit lane closure’ rule has been dropped.

The controversial rule required the pit lane to be declared closed at the beginning of a safety car period, and any driver who pitted during that time received a penalty. This unfairly ruined races for drivers on several different occasions.

Although the dropping of the rule is good news from a racing point of view, you have to ask why the rule was brought in in the first place.

The ‘pit lane closure’ rule was brought in for safety reasons. When a safety car period is called drivers can save themselves time by taking a ‘free’ pit stop before cars behind them have had a chance to catch up. However this potentially means drivers racing flat-out to get to the pits at a time when there is a serious incident on the circuit.

The revised sporting regulations don’t make any obvious provision to prevent that scenario from happening in the future. Last season the FIA ran several trials of a complicated system that required driver to stick to a pre-determined lap time when a safety car period was called. But that too seems to have been quietly dropped – presumably because it was too difficult and/or expensive to implement.

That said, the ‘pit lane closure’ rule caused safety problems of its own. Bunching the field up before most of them pitted together contributed to potentially dangerous incidents at Montreal and Singapore last year.

I’ve gone into the problems with the ‘pit lane closure’ rule at length in previous articles (below). I think abandoning it is the lesser of two evils because it was never going to work in Formula 1. We can chalk this up as another Max Mosley U-turn I think.

With a ban on race refuelling set for 2010, the pit lane closure rule was going to become irrelevant after the 2009 season.

• Changes to the 2009 Sporting Regulations in Full – La Canta Magnifico Blog
• Bad safety car rules catch out Heidfeld
• Video: Controversy as Lewis Hamilton hits Kimi Raikkonen in pit lane
• Felipe Massa’s pit lane disaster (video)
• New safety car rules catch teams out
• Video: the safety car rules danger

Lewis Hamilton - F1's third different champion in three years

The 2008 Formula 1 season ended on a high on the track – but the shock withdrawal of Honda was a sting in the tail.

With 2009 almost upon us it’s time to take stock of F1′s position as one season ends and a new year begins: the quality of the competition, the future of the teams and technology, and the ever-present political dimension.

The drivers

How times change. A few years ago the grid had a handful of race winners and Michael Schumacher was dominating every championship. At the start of 2009 the previous three championships will have had different winners, all of whom will be racing for top teams. We haven’t had that kind of competitiveness in more than a decade.

There are eight former race winners – plus two more if Jenson Button and Rubens Barrichello keep their seats.

Whether any of the drivers on the grid in 2009 bear comparison with the greats of Formula 1 – the Michael Schumachers and Ayrton Sennas – is always up for debate. But in terms of the quality of competition, Formula 1 is in good shape.

The teams

Has the number of car manufacturers in Formula 1 passed its peak and is now in an irreversible slide? Or was the withdrawal of Honda the natural culling of an uncompetitive team that wasn’t raising enough sponsorship revenue?

It’s too early to answer that question confidently, but the far-reaching cost-cutting agreement reached by the teams and the FIA shows all parties are convinced that if the manufacturer teams are going to stay in F1, the competition will have to get a lot cheaper.

The technology

When was the last time Formula 1 saw an upheaval in the technical rules comparable to the scale of changes coming in 2009? The banning of ground effects in 1983? Normally aspirated engines in 1989? Narrow track grooved-tyre cars in 1998?

With their ultra-wide front wings and narrow, long rear wings, 2009-specification F1 cars are strange beasts.

But the expensive new Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems look set to be more of a bone of contention among the teams. Ferrari’s Luca di Montezemolo has criticised them, saying they are too expensive and too specialised to assist in developing KERS for road cars. BMW’s Mario Theissen has defended them. But is this a genuine difference of opinion over the future of F1 technology? Perhaps it has more to do with the fact BMW was testing is KERS car months ago, and Ferrari has publicly admitted it has fallen behind on development.

The politics

Max Mosley: four more years, or finally retiring? He will make his decision known in the summer of 2009.

He first planned his F1 retirement for 2004, but changed his mind and decided to run for election again. Will the same happen next year? He still has the fallout from ‘Spankgate’ to contend with, and appears determined to carry on bringing lawsuits against publication who displayed the notorious photographs of him being whipped by prostitutes. His next stop is the German judiciary.

There are already rumours about potential successors. Nick Craw, the president of the Automobile Competition Committee for the United States (ACCUS), has been tipped as a contender. Mosley referred to Craw in a recent interview, suggesting he was too busy to take over as president of the FIA. Is this a sign Mosley is weighing up the opposition?

The delicate balance of power in Formula 1 seems to be tipped in the teams’ favour at present. As president of the Formula One Teams Association, Montezemolo recently felt confident enough to assert that “the time to divide and conquer to rule in F1 is over.” Having agreed to cost cutting measures on the teams’ terms – no standard engines – Montezemolo now wants a larger share of F1′s revenues, prompting a hostile reaction from Bernie Ecclestone.

At 78, Ecclestone remains unwilling to consider that anyone else might occupy his position in the future. Should Mr Ecclestone become unable to to carry out his duties, one of the most powerful roles in Formula 1 would suddenly become vacant, with no clear indication who his successor should be.

The teams are not just unhappy with the amount of money they receive. Another concern is the gradual loss of traditional F1 venues and countries (France and Canada are just the latest ones) in favour of tracks in new markets which are often of little value to the manufacturers.

Could 2009 be the year we finally see one of F1′s two political titans – Mosley and Ecclestone – step aside? Will we have a fourth new drivers’ champion? Will the manufacturer teams stay? Its an exciting and nervous time to be an F1 fan.

Read more: F1 2009: 10 questions for the off-season

Originally set for a 2009 ban, tyre warmers will be outlawed in F1 from 2010

One of the surprising changes to be announced by the FIA and FOTA was the ban on tyre warmers from the beginning of 2010.

These were originally going to be banned for 2009, but the change was dropped following objections from drivers. Why are they now slated to be banned again?

The FIA clearly feels (and FOTA presumably agrees) that tyre warmers are an unnecessary expense that add nothing to the Formula 1 spectacle. Last time we did a poll on this two-thirds of F1 Fanatic readers were against a ban on tyre warmers. But I agree with the FIA on this one.

“Another Senna situation”?

Few if any other major motor racing series use tyre warmers, which are used to pre-heat tyres before they are put on an F1 car to ensure optimum grip from the moment the driver puts his foot on the accelerator.

It’s exactly a year to the day since David Coulthard reacted to his first test without tyre warmers as “another Senna situation.” He warned that cold tyres would lead to more crashes.

But against the dire safety warnings it must be remembered that tyre warmers were not brought in for safety reasons when they were introduced in the mid-1980s. They were brought in to improve performance by reducing the amount of time it took drivers to get their tyres up to temperature. And it seems practically every other racing series copes well enough without them.

Will it save money?

It’s hard to imagine how great the cost savings of banning tyre warmers would be. However the thermal imaging camera used at some F1 rounds this year showed the pre-heated tyres going onto cars during pit stops were hotter than the tyres coming off the car. That much heating must consume an awful lot of energy.

The FIA will also have to take great care in how it frames the regulation banning tyre warmers to guard against workaround.

Otherwise, I’m all in favour of the tyre warmers ban. It will place a greater emphasis on the drivers’ skill, it will save money (however little) and I’m sure the safety concerns can be addressed.

Read more

• David Coulthard: “This is another Senna situation”
• Tyre warmers set for 2009 ban
• FIA set to allow tyre warmers in 2009
• Poll: should tyre warmers be banned?
• FIA announces detail of cost cut plans including refuelling and tyre warmer bans

Honda: front runners in 2009 thanks to KERS?

As the 2008 F1 season ends on a high we now look forward to what should be one of the most fascinating off-seasons for many years.

With radical changes to the technical rules, fraught political tension between the rule-makers and the teams, and two holes suddenly appearing in the calendar, these are the questions that will be answered in the run-up to 2009.

Will the teams who started early on KERS have an advantage?

Honda, Williams and BMW are among the teams that claim to have switched their focus to 2009 early in order to perfect the new Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems in the hope of gaining a major competitive advantage.

Honda have staked the most on their 2009 performance and their 2008 campaign has suffered hugely as a result. Ross Brawn will have been in charge of the team for over a year when the 2009 season starts. A huge step forward in performance is demanded.

• Will the 2009 F1 rules allow Honda to catch McLaren, Ferrari & the rest?

How many teams will start 2009 with a working KERS?

The other talking point about KERS is whether it will bring enough of a performance advantage and be reliable enough for all the teams to consider it worth using.

Toyota, who earlier described the hybrid systems planned for 2009 as “primitive”, have already said they will not be using their KERS at the start of 2009. John Howett said:

We will run a car in January with KERS in a monocoque not designed for it, which we could not race, but it will be a test platform – and our gut feeling is that the earliest (it will race) will be mid season.

Ferrari, who have twice said they are having problems with their KERS, may also choose not to.

• KERS not powerful enough for F1?
• KERS causing problems for F1 teams

Will the cars look ridiculous?

We have already seen how narrows the rear wings of next years cars will become under the 2009 F1 rules. The front wings will become much wider, and the winglets and flip-ups along the flanks of the cars will disappear.

The early renderings we’ve seen of the 2009 F1 cars look decidedly odd. Will the new look grow on us or will 2009 be the dawn of the ugly car era?

• 2009 F1 rules make rear wings tiny

Will the cars be able to follow each other more closely?

The reason F1 cars are potentially being uglified is to create something most of us would like to see: F1 cars being able to follow each other more closely in dry conditions and maybe – whisper it – being able to pass each other once in a while.

Once the teams start testing their 2009 cars we’ll keep a close eye on what driver have to say about how close they can follow each other. Another talking point here is whether these much-vaunted movable front wings are going to make a difference – and how easily we’ll be able to tell if drivers are using them.

• Adjustable wings in F1 – a change too far? (Poll)
• Good ideas on how to improve racing in F1

Will we see any new liveries?

Toyota: F1's dullest paint scheme?

With just about everything else set to change the liveries on the cars might be one of few things that stay the same. Personally I hope a couple of teams take the opportunity to give their looks a refresh.

Toyota’s F1 car design has never been particularly exciting, and Renault’s is downright horrible. Honda will surely be sticking with their ‘Earthdreams’ concept for another year (it would be rather strange of them to ditch it having made such a hue push on developing KERS) but will the change the excecution?

With KERS arriving, will any of the teams go for an ‘electric’ design similar to Peugeot’s 908 HY sportscar prototype? Or might that be too much of a risk after BMW’s unfortunate incident in testing?

• Poll: which is the best -looking 2008 car?

Will the recession cause any major sponsors to pull out?

The effects of the huge financial trauma experienced in September and October have yet to really make themselves felt in F1. But that doesn’t mean they won’t come – as Ron Dennis said earlier this year, there is usually a delay between the beginning of economic problems and their effects being felt in F1.

Perhaps the most vulnerable team is Williams. It doesn’t have the support of a major car manufacturer – it is believed to get its Toyota engines in exchange for running Kazuki Nakajima. Major sponsor RBS has received support from the UK government and its sponsorship of F1 and other sports such as rugby may now come into question. And Baugur Group, which backs Williams sponsors All Saints, mydiamonds.com and Hamley’s, may suffer from the problems in the Icelandic economy.

• The worst–case scenario

Will the Canadian Grand Prix be reinstated?

Will F1 race at Canada in 2009?

The shock loss of the Canadian Grand Prix from the 2009 F1 calendar was followed by the equally surprising disappearance of the French round. That leaves us with 17 rounds in 2009 instead of 19, and several gaping holes in the calendar.

Bernie Ecclestone has held discussions over bringing Montreal back onto the calendar and an announcement was expected on Friday. Nothing has been heard yet. However there has been no sign the French Grand Prix might return.

• No Canadian GP on 2009 F1 calendar
• 2009 French Grand Prix cancelled
• 2009 F1 calendar

Which drivers will fill the remaining open spots?

Renault, Toro Rosso and Honda are yet to confirm their 2009 F1 driver line-ups. Fernando Alonso is expected to announce today that he will stay at Renault (but he’s surprised us before), and Jenson Button is expected to remain at Honda.

Honda has confirmed it will test Bruno Senna, but it may decide to hold onto Rubens Barrichello who’s had a decent season. Senna along with Sebastien Bourdais, Sebastien Buemi and Takuma Sato are believed to be under consideration for the Toro Rosso drive. If Nelson Piquet Jnr doesn’t hold onto his Renault seat Lucas di Grassi or Romain Grosjean may take it off him.

• 2009 F1 drivers and teams

Will we see any major shifts in the balance of power between team mates?

McLaren, Ferrari, BMW, Toyota, Williams, Force India – all teams sticking with the same driver line-up for 2009. This year we saw Felipe Massa and Robert Kubica turn the tables on team mates who had beaten them the previous year.

Could we see something similar again as the drivers get to grips with the radically differnet 2009 cars?

What’s Max Mosley’s next move – and is he really preparing to step down?

Will Max Mosley still be FIA president in 12 months' time?

The political situation in F1 has become increasingly tense in recent months as the teams’ association (FOTA) and FIA president Max Mosley have tried to agree on future rules aimed at cutting costs in face of the worsening economic climate.

Despite the two agreeing terms last month, Mosley has continued to push for the adoption of standardised engines. The constructors have made it clear that they wish to retain the ability to build their own engines – and Ferrari and Toyota have threatened to quit F1 if standard engines are introduced.

In addition to that Mosley had stated repeatedly that he will step down from his post of president in 2009. But since surviving the sadomasochist sex scandal earlier this year an emboldened Mosley seems less keen on stepping down. Will he be forced to? And who could emerge as his successor?

• FIA- FOTA agreement: Teams’ proposals accepted as Mosley backs down on KERS
• Ferrari and Toyota threaten to quit F1 if Max Mosley forces standard engines

F1 Fanatic will be keeping a close eye on these – and more – during the 2008-2009 off-season. What else is on your mind about 2009 – and how do you think these questions will be answered?

Keep up with the latest developments on the 2009 F1 season: Get the latest articles from F1 Fanatic for free via RSS or our email subscription service. Click here for more information.