BBC Sport: Will Normal Service Ever Be Resumed?

How ironic that the BBC's coverage of the 2011 Formula 1 season ended with the above image. Viewers of the Formula 1 Forum, following the Brazilian Grand Prix, were treated to the only semblance of an apology that the BBC have offered to it's millions of Formula 1 fans for the decision to abandon any sort of serious commitment to the sport. The fact that this apology came about as a result of a Brazilian power cut rather than any sudden attack of decency from BBC bosses only serves to highlight the irony.

Formula 1 coverage, as we have known it, is no more. Despite previously committing to a five year contract to provide it's customers with live coverage of the full Formula 1 season, the BBC have bailed out of that commitment two years early. You may think that is fair enough. In these difficult economic times is it not right that the BBC should seek to make necessary cost savings just as every other public corporation is required to do? After all, when the original commitment was made nobody could have foreseen the tumultuous economic upheaval that the whole world has had to face up to. Surely Formula 1 fans should take this one on the chin and recognise that we all have sacrifices to make in these austere times?

On a personal level I have no dispute with the BBC for seeking to make such cost savings. As an avid Formula 1 fan I am disappointed that the BBC should choose to end it's full season coverage of the sport because it's coverage is very, very good. However, I recognise that savings do need to be made and I am willing to accept that this is one way that the BBC can make significant savings. What I do take issue with are the lies and smokescreens that have been proffered up by the BBC as they seek to mislead their customers regarding their motivations for the actions they have taken. The BBC has shown a complete disregard to the interests of both the sport and it's customers.

The word customers is an interesting one. We used to be viewers but now we are very much customers - or consumers. However, we are no normal customers. Normal customers make an informed decision on whether or not to purchase a product or service based upon whether or not we believe that product or service offers value for money. With the BBC we are not given that choice. For those of us living in the UK we are forced to purchase this service whether or not we think it is value for money and whether or not we have any desire to use it. The BBC has a captive customer base, and with that should come responsibility.

So what exactly is it that the BBC have done wrong? If savings need to be made then why is there such uproar among Formula 1 fans for the way that the BBC have gone about their business? What is it that is causing Formula 1 fans to claim that the BBC have shirked the responsibility that comes with their position?

In truth, there are a number of issues with the conduct of the BBC. All of these issues go to the heart of the matter of whether the BBC is providing a public service or is in fact serving it's own selfish ambitions. I believe that the overwhelming body of evidence is that the BBC shows very little regard to it's public responsibilities and is far more concerned with serving it's own interests rather than those of the people that are forced to pay for the inflated salaries of it's executives and presenters. The BBC has become a business that seeks to exploit it's customers in every way possible - not unlike the media outlet that it has decided to get into bed with for next year's Formula 1 coverage.

Next year the BBC have decided that they will be showing half of the Grand Prixs live while Sky Sports show the other half. For the races that will be shown live on Sky the BBC will be showing delayed extended highlights. The extent of these 'extended' highlights is not yet clear. The corporation is sending out extremely mixed messages that often contradict themselves. They have already shown that the statements they made immediately following the announcement of the deal were nothing more than outright lies. The promise that the BBC would be showing the races in full on a delayed transmission are already well and truly out of the window.

The first real issue that I have with the deal that the BBC have struck with Sky is simply the fact that is it with Sky. The BBC have done a very good job of attracting new fans to the sport of Formula 1 in the three years that it has had the screening rights back. Before this, the excellent work of people like Murray Walker and James Hunt converted others, including myself, to the excitement of the sport. It was a shock when the BBC first lost the screening rights for Formula 1. A shock but not a disaster. None of us lost the ability to watch the Formula 1 season. We simply had to turn over to ITV and endure those irritating adverts. However, this time the BBC have ensured that many of it's 'customers' will no longer be able to watch the full season by doing a deal with Sky.

There are two big problems with Sky. One is moral and the other is economic. Anybody who now wants to watch all of the Grand Prix live are now being forced to line the pockets of the Murdoch family. Many people will have a major moral aversion to doing business with such loathsome characters. This is the family who oversaw the News of The World hacking the phones of not just celebrities but also missing children, victims of crime and sufferers of personal tragedy. These people are the lowest of the low. The BBC may have no moral scruples about dealing with the Murdoch family but many people will find that their conscience does not allow them to do so. I don't have the luxury of making this moral choice, which leads to the second problem. Sky subscriptions are expensive. Many people cannot afford the hundreds of pounds a year required to watch Sky TV. It may well be the way of the world that the pleasures in life cost money, and if you can't afford them then it is simply tough, but the BBC should not be dressing this up as anything other than a deal that will cut off thousands (perhaps millions) of viewers from the sport they have come to love.

For many, that last statement may sound a little extreme. How can we possibly be cut off from the sport we love when the BBC will be showing extended highlights of each race that they are not showing live? For many people the thought of watching an entire Grand Prix is a dreadful one. Lap after lap of cars in procession, going around in circles with not much happening. Surely a highlights package that showed the 'interesting' bits but saved you from the tedium of uneventful laps would be an improvement? Not for the true Formula 1 fan! For those who understand the intricacies of the sport, those 'boring' laps are full of latent potential. You never know when a gearbox will explode, when a tyre will fail or when a backmarker will take off a leader for no apparent reason. We may be displaying trainspotting tendencies, but Formula 1 fans enjoy watching those cars go round in circles. It is the not knowing what will happen next that makes a full race so enjoyable.

In his end of season blog even Jake Humphrey acknowledges that "One of the things I've loved about the coverage we've provided since 2009 has been the genuine human emotion that only live sport can deliver." Live sport! Highlights simply do not offer anywhere near the same level of enjoyment. Without the full coverage you miss so much of the event and the intrigue. There is a solution however. Even on a time delayed transmission it is possible to watch the race as if it were live - provided that you get to see the race in full. Bernie Ecclestone has confirmed that this option is available to the BBC. The BBC has chosen not to take advantage of this. So much for its commitment to offering fans the very best coverage available!

Another issue with getting the most of next year's highlights on the BBC will be the ability to watch the Grand Prix without knowing the result. Will the BBC be respecting this fact by delaying showing any race results on it's website until after the highlights have been shown? I very much doubt it. The BBC has shown no signs so far of being willing to make any sacrifices on behalf of the fans. So the BBC, which says that it seeks to promote sport and it's coverage, will be giving Formula 1 fans the choice of watching the race already knowing the outcome or avoiding all other sports online on a Sunday. Its not as if a lot of sport takes place on a Sunday!

For all of the complaining, and putting aside the issue that the BBC is choosing not to show the race in full, all of the above can be justified under the banner of cost cutting. We all know that the BBC has to do everything that it reasonably can to cut costs. So bearing this in mind, why on earth is it sending a full team of presenters to every Grand Prix that it wont be showing live? There is no need and doing so is a slap in the face for everyone who is losing out on the ability to see the races. I have nothing against Jake Humphrey, David Coulthard or Eddie Jordan. Indeed I have greatly enjoyed their coverage of the sport. However, I have no desire to see my licence fee being used to pay for them to attend events that will not be made available for my full enjoyment when their is no practical need for them to do so. They could provide just as informative a discussion on the race from a studio in Manchester. The Match of the Day presenters manage it so why not the Formula 1 presenters? One or two interviewers, along with the technical crews, would be enough to provide all the footage we would need for highlights. Let us hope that the BBC see sense on that issue and do not throw that insult in our faces next year. The cost of sending them there may not be huge in terms of the overall budget, but how many Sky subscriptions for less well off viewers could be bought with that money? How many unwanted licence fees for that matter?

Perhaps I am being harsh. Perhaps it is unfair to be so critical of the BBC when there was no alternative faced with the need to save money. No alternative? That is the biggest issue of all. There was an alternative. I am not referring to the possibility of cutting costs on some of the more ridiculous projects that the BBC indulges in instead. I am biased and couldn't provide a balanced argument when it comes to that. I love Formula 1 too much. I am referring to the fact that an alternative - a much better alternative for Formula 1 fans - was available. Channel 4 offered an alternative that would have matched the package offered by Sky and would have allowed the full season to be shown on free to view television. Every race available to every viewer. Imagine that! The only difficulty? The BBC would not have been part of the deal. Channel 4 would have taken over the full coverage.

That left the BBC with a decision to make. A decision about what it exists for. Does it exist to provide the very best for it's licence fee payers or does it exist to serve itself. If the BBC was indeed interested in the welfare of both the sports it covers and the viewers of those sports it would have allowed Channel 4 to take over the coverage so that everybody could see every race. We got our answer. The BBC does not care about the viewer. If it gave up coverage rights then it wouldn't have clips to show on its website or highlights to show on the iplayer. The decision, in the end, had nothing to do with savings as the total savings would have been far greater. No crew or presenters to send to any race. They could even have invested those savings into covering another sport properly. However, they chose not to and showed us that they are happy to provide half-baked sports coverage.

There are a lot of Formula 1 fans saying that they will never forgive the BBC for this decision. Never is a long time in coming though, and sports fans are particularly fickle. The BBC can rely on the fact that our love of sport will always outweigh our dislike of how they have acted. If they ever see sense and decide to cover the sport properly then people will come back. They should not be complacent though. I, for one, will be exploring every possible alternative to watching Grand Prix on either Sky or the BBC next year. I doubt I will be the only person searching for live streaming. Perhaps of more concern though is the fact that I have always been opposed to abolishing the licence fee. I believed the BBC was worth protecting because, as a public service, it served our needs. I no longer think that. Politicians have a funny habit of taking advantage of fickle public opinion. Don't get too cosy in those fancy new Manchester offices!

Normal service will resume shortly? Normal service may never resume again!

Defend The Indefensible: Hamilton Had A Point!

In true Fighting Talk style, the challenge is to claim that Lewis Hamilton had a point when he made his post race comments which have seen him castigated by all and sundry, following last Sunday's Monaco Grand Prix.

At first glance this is not an easy task. It appears that the brakes on Hamilton's tongue are not carbon fibre as he struggled to slow down his over-heated tongue from spouting forth every random, frustrated thought going through his brain. You could see the battle between brain and tongue being played out live to the television cameras. He knew he probably shouldn't be saying what he was, but at the same time could not stop himself. So what exactly did this momentary loss of reason teach us?

The first, and biggest, lesson was that Lewis Hamilton is a better racing driver than he is a stand up comedian. While the Monaco stewards, and in turn the governing body, may well have taken issue with both of these skills, his references to 'is it cos I is black?' is unlikely to have won him any friends in the paddock, halls of power or even among the fans watching. It may have been said in jest, but Lewis has rightly now apologised for remarks that were certainly in bad taste. In light of the genuine struggles that many people still have to overcome because of the colour of their skin, such remarks from a privileged racing driver were hard to swallow.

His comments that his fellow drivers were 'frickin stupid' should make for an interesting reception for Hamilton at the Canadian Grand Prix from those fellow drivers. Although we can safely assume that those comments were aimed primarily at Felipe Massa and Pastor Maldonado, they will be comments that will not gain favour with any of his colleagues. There are only 24 drivers in the elite world of Formula 1 racing, and following those remarks Lewis may well find that it is a lonelier world once you have alienated yourself from your fellow drivers. Nobody has a divine right to win, or even to successfully overtake. Claiming that drivers were stupid for not giving way just because Lewis wanted to pass shows a poor lack of judgement.

Then there is the issue of the race stewards. Putting aside the fact that references to being persecuted because he is black were a joke, there was no hiding the fact that Lewis feels genuinely angry and hard done by because of the amount of times he is being called to explain himself to the stewards. Claiming that the actions of the stewards (not just the Monaco stewards) were a 'frickin joke' was another step towards alienating himself from those he has to deal with as he carries out his beloved passion for racing. Questioning either their integrity or abilities is unlikely to help him in these dealings. As Martin Brundle pointed out in commentary, Lewis has a mindset that looks to blame everybody but himself in these situations. It is a mindset that will need to be dealt with for the sake of Lewis' career.

But wait a minute. I'm not doing very well at this fighting talk lark. I'm meant to be defending Lewis - not adding to the criticisms. Luckily for me, the challenge was to claim that Lewis had a point. I only need to find one aspect of what he said that made some sense, and I can find two.

The first is so obvious that it leaves no room for argument. Lewis was asked how he felt. That his comments were an accurate description of how he felt is beyond dispute. They may not have been the best thought through comments ever made in a post race interview, but they were brutally honest. In an age when we can predict most of the words that are about to come out of a drivers mouth at any given time, there was a refreshing quality to hearing a driver speak his mind. Toeing the party line has become a skill that most drivers are as adept at as they are at driving their cars. Corporate sponsors need to be satisfied and that means giving safe, banal answers to any question faced. Don't rock the boat (especially at Monaco - its a deep harbour!).

David Coulthard has warned that we (both fans, and in particular the media) cannot have it both ways. We long for drivers to give honest, insightful answers to questions. We want the low down on what is really going on. However, when we receive those insights and honest feedback we are quick to criticise when the answers are not politically correct. Despite some of the comments being inadvisable, we should at least appreciate the honesty of his answers. Don't expect it to last though. The reaction to his comments will probably ensure that Lewis will be playing it safe from now on. Expect the remainder of the season to be filled with Lewis Hamilton making Kimi Raikonen's interviews look exciting!

The other, perhaps more significant, area where Lewis had a point is in the general concept that fans want to see overtaking and wheel to wheel racing. We do not want to see processions of cars lapping our racing circuits. It is of course in Lewis' interest to promote this style of racing as it is where he excels. However, this does not dilute the point.

The response to this year's rule changes, which have undoubtedly led to more overtaking and excitement, has been very positive. Increased overtaking opportunities inevitably lead to the more exciting drivers, such as Hamilton, being involved in more incidents. Hamilton's aggression is part of what makes him such an exciting driver. There is no doubt that this adds to the spectacle on offer. However, it is also a risky strategy. At times it will win him races - at others it will cost him races. This is no different than it is for 'boring' safety first drivers. At times their desire to avoid incidents will cost them races when they miss opportunities for success. At other times it will win them races as others fall away in front of them. This is just part and parcel of racing.

Monaco, however, is unique. It presents a dilemma to the Formula 1 world. If the circuit was removed from its location, it would never be allowed a place on the racing calendar. It fails in terms of safety, track length and overtaking opportunities. However, it is not removed from its location. This is Monaco and it is special. Nobody wants to see it removed from the calendar. The place is steeped in motor racing history and has a special place in any Formula 1 fan's heart. And there is the dilemma.

We want exciting races, but we also want safe races. As a result of this rules have been drawn up that stewards must follow to decide what is safe racing and what is not. These rules, while not perfect, work well at every circuit - every circuit except Monaco! At Monaco no overtaking manoeuvres are risk free. There is no point on the circuit where two evenly matched cars, on the same lap, can pass without risk of incident. Each overtake relies upon both drivers co-operating to avoid incident. Everytime a driver attempts an overtake they risk causing a collision. These collisions would certainly be avoidable as the driver could have chosen not to overtake. Nobody wants to see a race where the only passing takes place in the pit lane though.

Lewis Hamilton is able to claim some moral high ground on this point. Despite the fact that he is an extremely competitive racer, he allowed Micheal Schumacher room when overtaken at the hairpin. Yes, contact was made - but it was not even an incident that required consideration from the stewards. It can be argued that the only difference between that manoeuvre and the manoeuvre Hamilton attempted on Massa was the room given by the other car. I am not arguing that Massa was in the wrong - he wasn't. However, perhaps it is time for the stewards to adopt a more flexible approach to Monaco.

We are already more than happy to offer an element of leeway when it comes to other aspects such as safety or track layout. Why not offer some leeway in what qualifies as a racing incident? I am not pretending to have the answers to this dilemma. We want to see racing, yet we don't want to see a race where only a few cars avoid being knocked off the track. Lewis Hamilton's outburst may not have provided any answers to this dilemma either, but he definately had a point in raising the question.

Vettel Showing No Signs Of Pressure

Seven pole positions from the last eight races- there is no doubt as to Sebastian Vettel’s position as King of qualifying.


The current qualifying procedure of two knockout sessions followed by a top ten position shootout for pole position is designed to create drama and excitement for viewers. Drivers through to the shootout have only ten minutes to string together the perfect lap putting them under intense pressure. However, while others have struggled for example Mark Webber in China, Vettel has remained impressively relaxed and put in top laps when it has mattered to have qualified on pole position in all four races of the season so far.

The young German is only 23 and has already amassed a total of 19 pole positions since making his debut in the 2007 United States Grand Prix and achieving his first pole position a year later at a wet Monza. In doing so he secured his team Toro Rosso’s first ever pole position as well as the individual honour of becoming the youngest ever polesitter. As little as we are through the career of Sebastian Vettel, it is clear that Michael Schumacher’s record of 68 pole positions is under serious threat.

For this year Pirelli were asked to provide tyres with quick degradation- another FIA method of creating drama and excitement for their most valuable stakeholders- the viewers. Just like with his response to the dramatic qualifying sessions, Vettel remains unflappable to the additional pressures. In Turkey, Vettel built up enough of a gap to cover of a potential undercut from Fernando Alonso and his team-mate Mark Webber on a new set of tyres. Maybe if he did not have the speed advantage he currently possesses, he may be more worried about the potential strategies of opponents as Lewis Hamilton was clearly concerned with at the weekend- with regards to his radio conversations with his race engineer.

There are three races which have stood in my memory with regards to how good Vettel is in dealing with pressure situations.

Firstly his first grand prix at the USA grand prix in 2007. For the race weekend Vettel replaced the injured Robert Kubica following his high speed crash at the Canadian Grand Prix. Vettel had shown great promise in Friday test sessions, finishing top of the timesheets on various occasions but the pressures involved on race day are completely different. Vettel qualified seventh before producing a solid drive to finish eighth, in doing so becoming the youngest pointscorer ever in Formula 1.

The second race I have selected is the 2008 Italian Grand Prix. Having become the youngest polesitter, Vettel knew that he had a great opportunity to become the youngest racewinner. There was also huge pressure from his team who were looking for their first ever win- even more so when team-mate Sebastien Bourdais starting 4th, stalled on the grid. Vettel produced an excellent drive in tricky wet condition to win the race by more than 12 seconds ahead of 2nd placed Heikki Kovalainen in his McLaren.

However the best race which demonstrates the cool nature of Vettel is the Brazilian Grand Prix later that season. As the last race of the year Vettel was not in contention to win the championship albeit Lewis Hamilton who he was racing was leading going into the race. Again in wet conditions with only a few laps remaining Vettel was brave enough to overtake Hamilton and demote him from the 5th place needed to win the championship. Eventually the rain proved too much for the dry tyres of Timo Glock’s Toyota. Despite this Vettel’s overtake demonstrated incredible nerve as on a wet track it would have been so easy to go into the back of Hamilton and cost the Englishman the world championship.

These experiences show that Vettel will not fall under the pressures of winning races and qualifying and that competitors will have to beat him for pace if they are to prevent him winning his second world championship crown come the end of November.

Ferrari In Race Against Time

Following the split-second call made by Stefano Domenicali in the championship clinching Abu Dhabi grand prix last year- to bring Fernando Alonso into the pits to cover off an early stop by Mark Webber- Ferrari gained heavy criticism, not just from Ferrari chairman Luca Di Montazemolo but also the unwelcome input from Italian politicians. This criticism nearly led to the resignation of team principal, Domenicali, for making a judgement call, which on a different day could have provided Ferrari with their first Drivers Championship since Kimi Raikkonen in 2007.

However, three races into the current campaign and the Tifosi are beginning to appreciate how close their team came to an amazing comeback. It took an outstanding team effort to lead the drivers championship going into the final race of a nailbiting season. The comeback began after Alonso found himself nearly fifty points behind following a fourteenth place finish at the British grand prix. Following Silverstone, the F10 underwent rapid development resulting in the controversial 1-2 finish at Hockenheim two weeks later. Although after this race Ferrari still had a car slightly slower than the Adrian Newey designed Red Bull, the Ferrari established itself as the most reliable car on the grid. This led to Fernando Alonso achieving the feat of finishing five consecutive races on the podium from the Italian Grand Prix to the penultimate race in Brazil, including back to back wins in Monza and Singapore.

Now back to 2011, Vettel’s wins in Australia and Malaysia in addition to his second place in Shanghai has left Alonso 42 points of the pace- a very significant margin after only three races. Despite Ferrari’s race pace not actually being that slow, the same cannot be said of their raw pace in qualifying under a light fuel-load and fresh tyres. The Ferrari was a mammoth 1.4 seconds behind Vettel in qualifying 3 in China and this gap needs to be reduced by about a second if they are to make an impression in the races. Also of concern to Ferrari is that unless the car improves, they will fall back into the clutches of the best of the rest -Mercedes and Renault- as we saw with Nico Rosberg producing an excellent drive to finish above both Ferraris in China.

One silver lining for Ferrari though has been the improved performances of Felipe Massa. The Brazilian, who looked out of sorts last season following the terrible high speed crash suffered in Hungary in 2009, showed in China at least that he might be rediscovering his best form. Viewers have become accustomed to seeing Massa approximately 0.3 seconds a lap slower than his two time world champion team-mate, however in China he matched Alonso in qualifying and went on to overtake him into turn one. Alonso’s starts this year have not been up to scratch, losing him places in every race so far and Ferrari need to see whether the source is the driver or the car before they can address the problem.

As the top employees at Ferrari head back to Maranello during this three week break to find the weaknesses of the car, at least Ferrari can draw on last year’s comeback as a great motivation for starting this year’s. Although I’m sure Domenicali and co. would not have been expecting to be having to make such drastic steps following a successful winter testing in Barcelona, where Ferrari looked the pick of the bunch after Red Bull. Yes, McLaren have developed their car an amazing amount since testing, but this does not explain why the Red Bull has been so much faster in comparison to the Ferrari in the first few races than it was in tests. Sandbagging is a good possibility but another key factor is generally believed to be the effect of cold track temperatures on the tyres. The track temperatures in Barcelona and Abu Dhabi were considerably warmer than what we have seen so far this season but the extent of this on the relative pace of the Ferrari? - Only time will tell.

Ferrari have a long time (16 races) until the end of the season to demonstrate the potential of the Ferrari 150 but at the vast rate of noughts that Sebastian Vettel is pulling away out front, they need to find an immediate improvement over the next few races to be in the hunt come the end of the season.

Why Risk It? - Because Its The Most Fun You Can Have With Your Clothes On!

The horrific sight of a safety barrier skewering the remains of Robert Kubica's Skoda may leave many people wondering why such a succesful sportsman would risk his career by participating in such a dangerous sport.

Robert Kubica is not the first driver to suffer a serious injury picked up participating in extra curricular activities. Nor will he be the last. One of the most publicised recent examples is that of Mark Webber who broke his leg while cycling in November 2008. At the time, people were suggesting that the head on crash between his bicycle and a car in Tasmania may threaten his ability to participate in the sport. While Kubica's recovery is likely to be a far longer process, we certainly wish him just as successful an outcome. But why risk it in the first place?

It can be argued that Mark Webber could not have foreseen such a dramatic event taking place while riding his bike. The risks were far more likely to have come from a fall - risks which themselves carry enough threat of serious injury - but not likely to result in career threatening injuries. The same cannot be said of Robert Kubica. Rallying, like all other forms of motorsport, is dangerous. It says so on the ticket, on the entry forms and throughout any access points to the event. Unlike other forms of motorsport, rallying does not have run off areas or purpose built venues designed with safety in mind. It takes place on roads and tracks designed for very different purposes. The risks are undoubtedly greater.

That said, it is not as if Kubica did not already know of the considerable risks involved in his own profession, as shown by his crash in the Canadian Grand Prix in 2007. He emerged relatively unscathed from that accident, but it is fair to say that it was a memorable experience.

Such an experience would leave ordinary mortals such as you and I with a far more cautious outlook on getting behind the wheel of a car. Grand Prix drivers do not have that luxury. They are a special breed. Their focus remains on the thrill of driving at high speed, testing the limits of man and machine for the reward of victory. They are aware of the risks but they do not focus on them. It is all about the joy of high speed driving.

I have no experience of driving a Grand Prix car, so I am not particularly qualified to pass opinion, but I will anyway. My opinion is that the thrill of driving a rally car at high speed surpasses even that of driving the ultimate Grand Prix machines. The speeds may be nowhere near as great as in Grand Prix racing, but the thrill of negotiating obstacles and hazards that pass inches from your vehicle is unlike any other. Whether it is on public roads, closed for the event, or on forest gravel tracks lined with trees and precipitous drops to valleys below, rallying is a test of skill over constantly changing terrain. The car moves from one slide to another as the driver negotiates bend after bend, incorporating jumps and wheels lifting on the undulating road. This is the ultimate driving by the seat of your pants experience. Every twist and turn, lift and dip is felt as they travel through the stage. The vehicle is an intimate part of its surroundings.

Despite the risks, or maybe even because of them, the adrenalin buzz is both indescribable and addictive. The car is constantly on the limits of its abilities, only ever a fraction of a mistake away from disaster. The line between success and failure is a tiny one. The fastest line is often the highest risk to take, passing millimetres from the trunk of a tree, an outjutting rock or, as in the case of Robert Kubica, a safety barrier at the edge of the road. It is difficult to describe the thrill created by the proximity of these hazards. The closest example of these condition in Grand Prix racing is probably the Monaco Grand Prix with its tight, twisting lines and lack of run off areas. It is probably no coincidence that the Monaco Grand Prix is many drivers favourite event.

This buzz is more than likely what drew Robert Kubica to participate in rallying despite the risks. Following the accident, his Renault team issued a statement saying that both they and Kubica were aware of the risks involved in his participation, but that they were happy to give their blessing for his participation as they did not want robots driving for their team. Perhaps this statement also provides another clue as to his attraction to rallying. Grand Prix driving is an extremely skillful and demanding art. However, it is very different from rallying. It involves repetitive coverage of a short track, seeking thousands of a second improvements lap by lap. Without being meant in a derogatory way, the driver becomes almost robotic in his actions. Rallying is the very antithesis of this. The courses stretch over hundreds of miles, with no detailed knowledge of what lies around the next corner. The challenge of responding to each new situation, corner by corner, adds to the thrill of driving a rally car.

As somebody who used to compete in the sport, and regularly attend events, I have often wondered why rallying does not receive the same levels of coverage and media interest as Formula 1. I was not brought up in a rallying family, and attended my first event as a spectator purely out of loyalty to friends who were competing on the event. I was a rallying novice with a limited knowledge of the sport. The long trek into the forests of Dumfries and Galloway did not fill me with any special excitement or thrill. Standing in amongst the trees with the other spectators for a good half hour and seeing nothing happen certainly did not cause any anticipation of good things to come. And then it happened. The relative quiet was shattered by the sudden scream of an engine from nowhere. It sounded like a car was was hurtling towards where I stood at any second. I could not believe how long it actually took for any vehicle to come into view, but when it did I was addicted. A Metro 6R4 suddenly appeared over a crest and within seconds was sliding around the tight left hand corner we were stood next to, apparently without bothering to slow down. As the car passed less than two metres from where I stood I could feel a shiver running down my spine. The noise, the smell, even the feeling of gravel being thrown up by the car in my direction, all created an experience I would never forget. The whole situation lasted only three or four seconds but the memories lasted a lifetime.

Car after car passed at minute intervals, each one adding to the occasion. Twenty or thirty cars later one of the cars suddenly went straight on at the corner, finding itself embedded in the undergrowth at the side of the track. Before I knew what was happening, I was part of a hoard of spectators surrounding the car, lifting and pushing it back onto the track. This was like nothing I had ever seen. Certainly, as an avid Formula 1 fan, I had never seen spectators helping a car out of any gravel traps. This was motorsport at its very best, up close and personal, in cars that looked just like cars I saw on the high street everyday of the week. Following that day, I spectated on every rally I got the opportunity to attend. I thought that nothing could beat the excitement of watching a rally. I was wrong!

Within a year I was competing on my first event as a co-driver. I went on to compete in roughly fifty rallies, experiencing the thrills of being in a car travelling at 100mph through forests with trees inches away, and huge drops at the side of the road. The adrenalin rush was amazing. I simply couldn't get enough!

I also experienced the pain, literal pain, of things going wrong. That was part of the thrill. It is impossible to push the car to its limits without mistakes being made and limits being crossed. I was fortunate. The worst I ever suffered was bad concussion from hitting a tree sideways at high speed. The risk was always there of far worse injuries, but rarely thought about during events. The risk was all part of the attraction. I believed, and still do believe, that this was the most fun anybody could possibly have with their clothes on. So why does Formula 1 get all the attention?

The problem for rallying lies within the very things that make it so appealing. The noise, the smell, the participation from spectators. These are all things that involve being there. They do not translate to television. No amount of electronic gadgetry and TV effects can pass on the most thrilling aspects of rallying. What you are left with is cars that pass any given point on the track one at a time at minute intervals, and then disappear into the distance never to appear again. There is no overtaking. This is man and machine against the clock. Only somebody who understood the thrills of rallying would ever want to watch a live event with all of the waiting around for the next car to appear for a few seconds. Its a bit of a vicious circle. You have to understand it to understand it.

In contrast, Grand Prix races are spectacular events. They are superb events to attend. Just as in rallying, the noise and atmosphere do not translate fully to television, but unlike rallying what you are left with is an event that is viewer friendly. Cars are constantly in view. Every piece of action is captured by the cameras due to the small geographical space involved. As a result, Formula 1 is one of the most exciting sports to watch with millions of armchair fans all across the globe.

Sadly, due to the relatively poor coverage that rallying receives, not many of those armchair fans will understand why Robert Kubica took the risks he did by participating in rallying. Not many will have any appreciation of the thrills that lured him into the rally car driver's seat. The only suggestion I would have for those fans would be to attend an event yourself and see at first hand what it is all about. In the meantime, along with all motorsport fans everywhere, I wish one of the most talented drivers to have taken up a seat in a grand prix car a speedy and successful recovery, and hope that in as short a time as possible he is back participating in a sport that I love just as much as rallying.

Talent Over Money? Fernando Is Richer Than You!

The days of swashbuckling drivers pitting their skills against man and machine, in a bid to establish who was the fastest and most skillful driver of all, may seem to be distant memories of better days.

These days Formula 1 attracts headlines as often for its controversy and politics as it does for daring overtaking manoeuveres or epic battles to the chequered flag. It may still be one of the world's most popular, if not most popular, form of motorsport, but is it in danger of losing touch with its legions of fans?

In a sport that inherently contains more barriers to participation than any other of the same popularity, due to costs and opportunity, those on the inside of the sport are in danger of pushing those on the outside further and further away from the sport they love. Formula 1 is the domain of the privileged, and in the world of the privileged money talks.

Corporate sponsorship always has been, and always will be, an integral part of Formula 1. The costs of running a Formula 1 team mean that, unless you are a Russian oligarch, help is needed from big business - and help from big business can often involve selling your soul, or the soul of your sport. It is no longer just about results, its all about getting the right results.

Last year the season was marred by the bizarre and now infamous radio transmission from Rob Smedley to Felipe Massa at the German Grand Prix. "Fernando is faster than you." The accepted reason for these thinly disguised team orders were that Fernando Alonso had a greater chance of winning the driver's championship than his team mate. It is safe to say that any driver who can rely on their team mate being ordered to give way has a better chance of winning the driver's championship. However, with the greater marketing potential, investment and backing of his team, perhaps it would have been more accurate for the transmission to have said "Fernando is richer than you."

Marketing, backing and sponsorship are wresting control of the sport away from the racing principles upon which it was built. As the sport struggles to cope with rising costs and the increasing difficulty in attracting sponsorship in the challenging economic climate, more and more drivers are acquiring seats based upon the amount of money they bring with them to their teams rather than down to pure driving ability. This is not a new occurrence. It is doubtful whether Pedro Diniz would have gained a seat in Formula 1 without the help of his father's supermarket empire. However, this year alone there are three new drivers who may not have entered the F1 circus without the money that they bring with them.

In the face of such financial factors, the news that Paul di Resta has gained a seat with Force India for 2011 is a refreshing breath of fresh air. For once skill has taken precedence over money.

Not only is di Resta not bringing money to the team, but Force India will need to compensate Tonio Liuzzi for the loss of his contracted seat with the team. The Scot has proved himself in lower formulas. Now he has the opportunity to prove his ability at the highest level.

For a sport that can never really claim that its champion is the most gifted in the world, but rather only the most gifted to have been given the opportunity, this promotion of skill over money is a beacon of hope to those who are desperate to see the sport return to its sporting and competitive roots.