Off the pot

Few sports can deliver such interest and excitement outside their arena of competition as Formula 1 does. Last week, the possibility of BMW quitting the sport or Michael Schumacher racing again would have seemed about as likely as… well, about as likely as McLaren taking a dominant race victory. But all of those things – and, shockingly, F1’s most serious accident for a long time, perhaps since 1995 – have taken place since them.

Today’s developments have made my last F1 blog post hopelessly outdated. Schumacher is putting his life and his reputation at risk… but neither very seriously, probably. It’s great news for Hamilton, Vettel and other new drivers from 2007 onwards, who now have a chance they must never have expected to race against Schumacher; less good for Raikkonen, who will surely be toast in F1 if Schumacher can jump into the car with no testing and beat him. Less good for Nelson Piquet, too: with the possibility of Alonso moving to Ferrari gone, he can surely expect to be sacked.

But the BMW news is in some ways more interesting, as it’s less easy to understand. The need to sign a new Concorde Agreement probably put BMW’s board in an impossible situation: should they commit to F1 for another few years, with their momentum lost and a total lack of results, plus apparent political instability and arguably an image problem after the Mosley spanking scandal, or should they chuck away their investment? Neither option can have seemed very attractive, but the new Concorde Agreement effectively obliged them to go or get off the pot.

BMW’s F1 operation has always had a slightly funny character about it, ever since the Williams tie-up. Everyone today has been talking about their targets-driven philosophy: when Williams failed to meet targets the partnership was dissolved. This was in spite of circumstances: two of the three the years when the partnership should have started producing big results – 2002, 2003 and 2004 – were years of Ferrari red-wash; in the other, Williams had a genuine tilt at the title. Mercedes stuck with McLaren for the long-term, despite the latter struggling apparently even more than Williams in 2003 and 2004 with the chassis side. But BMW bailed.

Targets were order of the day in their new team too. They were met up until last year, when Mario Theissen opted to switch the focus to 2009 despite being in with a shout at the 2008 title. If the team could maintain its progress, it would be a clear front-runner by 2009, rather than a close third-place car as in 2008. But it was a colossal “if”: a new set or regulations was bound to make things unpredictable; and even leaving that aside, there is no guarantee that a new car will be fast just because last year’s was – BMW’s slump this year is not unlike Honda’s in 2007, after a strong 2006.

Yet Theissen ignored the tendency of motor racing not to run to script, and gambled it all on heavy development of the 2009 car and the new KERS system – retained only at his insistence against the other teams’ doubts – and lost everything. Theissen’s problem is that he almost certainly didn’t realise he was gambling at all. Nor did he probably realise quite how F1 historians will judge a man who had a chance at a world title and did not pursue it – despite his neat and logical demeanour, in motor racing that decision marks him out as a raving eccentric.

So, will the team survive? It seems quite likely. Peter Sauber might take it over again, though he is not a young man; it’s quite possible that BMW will do a Honda and provide the finance to keep it going for a year. Failing that, one of the failed entrants for the new grid slots, such as Lola or Prodrive, might be interested in some sort of hook-up.

But will it hang on to its drivers? My comment that the driver market looks rather big may be about to be proved wrong: if Renault walk away too (and it’s noteworthy that they have not joined Mercedes and Toyota in reaffirming their commitment), will all the old teams really be kept on the grid as well as all the new ones? We are a long way away from knowing what teams will be racing in 2010.

Missing Massa

The nastiness of Felipe Massa’s accident in qualifying last Saturday is only just becoming clear. The head injury is serious enough – twenty years ago it would most probably have been fatal, and further complications could yet occur – but it is now reported that his eye is damage, which could finish his career. It would be a deeply sad way for Massa to leave the sport, as he is probably one of the most liked and respected drivers on the grid, not just for his apparently effortless cheeriness, but for both the way in which he developed his driving from speedy but erratic to championship-challenging, and the sportsmanship he displayed when he ultimately lost out to Hamilton last year.

Still, life goes on: hopefully, for Felipe Massa, that means a long and happy future whether in or out of the cockpit; for Ferrari, it means they are a driver short. Who will get that seat has become something of a vexed question. The driver market has been near-static in the last year or so, with only David Coulthard and Sebastian Bourdais having left the sport, so there are no obvious drive-less drivers knocking around. Nor are there any obvious up-and-comers to pop in the car… not that Ferrari would be likely to do that.

Test drivers are normally the first port of call in situations like this. Marc Gene and Luca Badoer both had the odd season for Minardi, but both a decade or so ago. Gene filled in at Williams for a few races in the mid-2000s, but he’s not exactly race sharp. Badoer was passed over for the race drive when Michael Schumacher broke his leg in 1999; it’s hard to see him getting the nod now.

So, what are the other options? Well, this is classic F1 off-track intrigue. One theory speculates Michael Schumacher could be invited back. As far as I can see this is pure invention, but it’s a lovely idea: he’s not yet 40, and could surely have a creditable go at it. With Spa and Monza in the offing, slick tyres to play with and a Ferrari team apparently bouncing back, it might just be attractive to him… Then again, we’ve just been reminded that he would be putting his life at risk – is there really that much attraction to it that he would do such a thing? It’s a lovely idea, but it would be pretty astonishing if it were to happen.

The other hot theory is more complicated still. Fernando Alonso’s contract with Ferrari is spoken of as solid gold fact by many people better informed than I; add to that Renault’s suspension from the next race, and perhaps they could get him in the car half a season early, and either retain him alongside Raikkonen next year, or ditch Raikkonen if Massa is sufficiently well to race again…?

Now, Renault might have a thing or two to say about that, of course… But Renault is itself rumoured to be selling up to a Russian oligarch and getting out of F1. Would losing Alonso jeopardise that deal? It would certainly jeopardise some Alonso-dependent sponsorship… Then again, if Ferrari get their chequebook out, all those problems could be made to go away.

In this scenario, what would Renault do for drivers? Other things being equal, they’re about to sack Nelson Piquet and put Romain Grosjean in the car. Finding two new drivers would not be fun; having two drivers to the end of the season who have no experience of the car must seem even worse. Then again, would it be any worse than having the hapless Piquet? As Martin Brundle observed on Sunday, his job isn’t to go quicker than Alonso, but it is to be there when Alonso’s not in a position to score, and he simply hasn’t been able to do that. If Jaime Alguesuari (close enough!) can get on terms with his team-mate in an unfamiliar car, Renault can surely chance it on two newbies and expect at least one to be better than Nelsinho. The only justification for keeping Piquet is probably to avoid a legal dispute with him and his dad.

As an aside, neither Piquet nor Bourdais have necessarily ended their F1 careers, even if neither turns a wheel again all season: there are three new teams due to enter F1 next year, who will need drivers. They might be willing to consider slow but experienced-ish guys like Bourdais and Piquet; even Jacques Villeneuve is apparently hopeful of landing a seat!

So if we look around for drivers who are less recently departed from F1, the obvious names are Takuma Sato and Anthony Davidson. Sato was in the frame for the Toro Rosso drive this year, while Davidson must surely be in with a shout of returning to F1 if his traditional lack of effective management has been solved. If I was running Ferrari, I’d have Ant on my list for if Fernando turns out not to be available.

And what of the current drivers? The great problem at the moment is that it’s not clear who is likely to be quick next year: will McLaren and Ferrari re-emerge? Will Brawn and Red Bull be able to stay at the front? Will Renault get sold, and if so will they be any bloody good? What will happen with the two under-hitting manufacturers BMW and Toyota, who could seemingly line up at the back or front of the grid, or anywhere in between? Can Williams hold it together? With all these questions, it’s hard to know whether Robert Kubica or Nico Rosberg would be wise to seek pastures new or not (if Kubica even can, contractually); Heidfeld’s stock seems to have dropped a bit so it’s not clear he could get a good seat elsewhere; Kovaleinen would surely be looking to hang on at McLaren as his first choice; Vettel and Webber are both tied up for next year… All told, it’s a big driver market with not that many drivers rattling round in it.

So, Alonso to Ferrari, Piquet and Grosjean at Renault looks the most likely of a set of not-very-likely looking scenarios at the moment. But anything could happen. Coulthard in a Ferrari? Well, I’d like to see it.

Mercury revved

Oops – I wrote this yesterday and then saved it as a draft instead of publishing it. Oh well. Read with irony…

I don’t normally care very much about the Mercury prize, but Elbow’s victory last year probably restored some credibility to it, and the speculation about the likely nominees, announced tomorrow, is interesting.

I would have no problem with Florence and the Machine receiving a nod – it’s an undeniably interesting and successful record. I can’t help but think her voice, while powerful, is unsubtle and many of the rich arrangements on the collection serve to prevent it sounding like an insistent honk. But still, Rabbit Heart is surely one of the most striking singles released all year, and the long player lives up to its promise.

Probably the record I’ve listened to more than any other in 2009 is Wall of Arms by The Maccabees, so I very much hope that gets acknowledged. Among other currently trendy artists, Jack Penate would not be an unworthy nominee either – both of those records are excellent albums that function as a whole from start to finish, and do interesting things with the sounds they use.

Elbow’s win has probably cooked the goose of their fellow epic and melancholy Mancs the Doves – I suppose a nomination might come their way, but they clearly can’t win.

Emmy the Great’s album would also be a welcome nominee. The Noisettes seem not to have gained the momentum I would have expected on the back of such a strong pop record – a nomination would be a well-deserved fillip for them. And Bat for Lashes seems an inevitability.

There has been some discussion of Madness’s Liberty of Norton Folgate earning them a nomination as this year’s “heritage artist”. I’ve only listened to it once, and while I’m sure it’s very good, and will grow on me, I’m sceptical of claims that it’s their greatest record ever. It perhaps risks over-shadowing the Pet Shop Boys’ Yes, which probably functions better as a pop record and should, if there’s any justice (which, of course, there isn’t – not generally, and seldom where the MErcury is concerned), be on the list.

What else? Oh yes – Camera Obscura. I like their My Maudlin Career album, but can’t quite get past the problem that it’s not as good as its predecessor Let’s Get Out Of This Country record. Still, it would be lovely to see it get recognised.

There are some conspicuous selections that have been tipped but plainly do not deserve a nomination. I have quite a bit of time for the Glasvegas album, for instance… but the best record of the last twelve months? Of course not. Jarvis Cocker’s deeply mediocre Further Complications has no place on the list either. And the Manics’ Journal for Plague Lovers, while a lovely idea, failed to excite my ears in the end. Could Morrissey be on there? Years of Refusal is a decent record, but surely shouldn’t be on the list.

It would be jolly nice to see Thomas Tantrum’s debut album get nominated, come to think of it – it rewarded a lot of listens last year, despite being superficially simply shouty and noisy.

And finally… wel, it would gladden my heart beyond measure if MJ Hibbett’s Regardez, Ecoutez et Repetez were to strike a blow for Proper Indie and make the nominees. I will be astonished if it does, but it’s a lovely thought…

New podcast!

Here’s a new edition of John Kell Vs Satan, including music by the Gossip, Laura Cantrell, Jarvis Cocker, the Maccabees and many more. Hope you like it.

You can stream it here, or download it from here.

And remember: if you like what you hear, consider supporting the artist with a purchase.

Edited to add: I’ve uploaded a second and hopefully rather higher-quality version of the file  (explanation in the comments), so have a second listen if you found it tricky going first time. Though the first track is still pretty ropey, owing to the source material…

This will be BRILLIANT!

For those based in London, there’s a “rehearsal” at The Lamb on July 7th, and official preview on July 21st – details here. See you there!