With F1 currently scheduled to arrive en masse in Bahrain next week, a crisis surrounding the possible cancellation of the island Kingdom’s race is continuing to deepen.

The teams have now denied Bernie Ecclestone’s claim that they can simply choose to skip the event.

“That would not be possible,” said a statement issued by the teams association FOTA. “Teams are unable to cancel (a) grand prix.”

Bahrain, meanwhile, stepped up its campaign, accusing some of deploying “scare-mongering tactics” designed to force the race’s cancellation.

The race organisers released a report conducted by Lotus, following the Enstone based team’s recent reconnaissance mission to Bahrain.

“We came away from Bahrain feeling a lot more confident that everything is in hand,” Lotus is quoted as having reported.

The team, however, reacted angrily, accusing the organisers of having released a “confidential” document.

“Lotus F1 Team is one of 12 contestants of the … world championship and we would never try to substitute ourselves for the FIA”, said the Enstone based team.

Surmised Times correspondent Kevin Eason on Twitter: “(It’s) getting messy…”

At the same time, F1 chief executive Ecclestone became fully immersed in the political situation on Tuesday, reporteding personally phoning Bahrain’s crown prince to express concern about the jailed hunger striker.

An Amnesty International report published this week had called for Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja’s release, amid claims he is now close to death and being force-fed.

But the Bahrain government, through its information affairs authority, insisted that only police and rioters are being injured in “infrequent and remote clashes”.

Also weighing into the argument was Sir Jackie Stewart, the eloquent triple world champion, who said: “I would go.

“The commercial rights holder has sold a package, at a price, and it is part of the constructors’ agreement that they attend the races that have been published,” he told the Guardian.

“As a team owner I would have to honour my agreement both orally and legally.”

Whatever happens, the Bahrain saga – stretching back now over a year – is not good news for the future of the island Kingdom’s calendar spot.

“Maybe we wouldn’t renew it (the contract),” Ecclestone admitted to the BBC. “We’ll have to look and see.”

McLaren is not yet ready to roll out a Mercedes-style ‘F-duct’ to complement its highly competitive 2012 car.

Despite Mercedes struggling with tyres in the actual races so far, the W03 is a standout qualifying performer, thanks in part to the so-nicknamed front and rear ‘super-DRS’ system.

Red Bull, Lotus and perhaps even Ferrari are threatening to protest, but until now McLaren – with arguably the dominant package of the 2012 season so far – has stayed out of the argument.

“We don’t have a strong view one way or the other,” technical director Paddy Lowe confirmed during the regular Vodafone media teleconference on Tuesday.

The F-duct will remain a hot topic in China this weekend, with Lotus’ technical boss James Allison believed to be armed with two new arguments against its legality.

It was thought McLaren was quite advanced with its own version of the system.

But Lowe revealed: “Until we’ve got clarity it’s difficult for us to commit a huge about of effort in that direction. So that’s where we are at the moment.”

He steered away from suggestions Mercedes, including boss Ross Brawn, have flouted the “spirit” of the recent F-duct ban.

“There’s no such thing as the spirit of the rules,” insisted Lowe, admitting that if there was a ‘spirit’ of the DRS rule, the Mercedes system is “definitely” in breach.

“The debate around whether they can keep that system on the car is not about whether it is in that spirit or not, it’s about whether the text of the regulations means they can’t,” he explained.

Ross Brawn has confirmed reports that Mercedes’ 2012 ‘F-duct’ will not be easily copied by rival teams.

We reported on Thursday that while Red Bull and now Ferrari worked quickly to copy Sauber’s clever exhaust solution, they are crying foul over the Mercedes F-duct.

Is it because they really believe it breaks the rules, or is the system simply difficult to copy?

Red Bull designer Adrian Newey was quoted by Brazilian O Estado de S.Paulo newspaper in Malaysia: “In regard to the aerodynamic (F) duct of the Mercedes, and sending the airflow from the back to the front, it is necessary to review the entire project.”

Mercedes team boss Brawn confirmed: “The opposition is so fierce (because) there’s a recognition it’s quite difficult to do.”

He rejected the rivals’ arguments about cost, however, insisting Mercedes’ system consists mainly of carbon tubing costing no more than thousands of pounds.

“It’s a very simple, cheap system, but not so easy to implement if you haven’t integrated it into your car,” said the Briton.

“This is at the heart of the frustration of some of our opponents. If someone could put it on their car easily, I promise you we wouldn’t be having these discussions.”

It emerged this week, however, that despite the FIA having consistently sided with Mercedes on the F-duct issue, Lotus’ technical boss James Allison has come up with two new arguments that will be put to Charlie Whiting next week in China.

“We would obviously be extremely disappointed if someone was to take a different view,” said Brawn.

“The FIA have been fairly consistent over their position so we have faith that they’ll maintain that consistency.”

The FIA appears to have waded back into the ‘F-duct’ debate, indicating that the Mercedes-style solution is fully legal.

We reported on Monday that the saga looked set to continue into China next weekend, with some teams – notably Red Bull and Lotus – questioning the legality of the aerodynamic innovation.

It had emerged that Lotus technical director James Allison has come up with another argument against the technology that will be posed to the FIA’s Charlie Whiting ahead of scrutineering in Shanghai next week.

Christian Horner insists Red Bull and Lotus’ concerns are shared by others.

“Believe me it’s not just Red Bull, I think there’s half the paddock that’s been looking at this,” he told British television Sky Sport’s The F1 Show.

The Red Bull team boss revealed that Whiting left Malaysia wanting “to have a think about it”.

So, the latest development is the re-release via the FIA website of an “edited version” of the technical briefing that Whiting gave to reporters in Australia last month.

It is believed the complaining teams’ main objection to the Mercedes system is that it arguably uses ‘driver movement’ – the pressing of the DRS button – to be activated.

Under the heading “Pressing the DRS button and the issue of ‘driver movement’”, the media briefing quotes Whiting as stating simply: “This is specifically allowed (in the rules).”

Mercedes’ Ross Brawn is quoted by the BBC: “We call it the DRS, because that’s all it is. The purpose of the DRS is to improve overtaking and that’s what we’re trying to do.”

Whiting’s stance in China, however, may not be the end of it.

“Then the teams are faced with alternatives,” Horner explained. “Either accept it and get on it and maybe look at your own solution if that fits your car.

“You’ve got the opportunity to protest if we were to feel – or any other team were to feel – that we didn’t agree with Charlie’s interpretation,” he added.

The 2012 ‘F-duct’ controversy looks set to keep running for now.

“It’s not over yet,” confirmed Red Bull advisor Dr Helmut Marko to Germany’s Auto Bild.

In Australia and Malaysia, the threat of results protests hung over the opening races of 2012, due to some teams – chiefly Red Bull and Lotus – questioning the legality of the aerodynamic innovation on Mercedes’ 2012 car.

Until now, the FIA has declared that the system – working in unison with the driver-operated DRS – is fully legal.

But it has emerged that Lotus technical director James Allison has come up with another argument against the technology that will be posed to the FIA’s Charlie Whiting ahead of scrutineering for next weekend’s Chinese grand prix.

It is believed that while Ferrari is on Red Bull and Lotus’ side at present, Mercedes-powered McLaren is currently staying out of the debate altogether.

A third major team has joined the crusade against Mercedes’ so-nicknamed ‘W-duct’ innovation.

Until now, only Red Bull and Lotus were pushing hard for the FIA to ban the drag-reducing system that Britain’s Sky television is calling ‘Super-dooper DRS’.

Auto Motor und Sport reports that Ferrari has now joined the anti W-duct group, providing a new argument about why a driver is not permitted to activate a separate system by pressing the ‘DRS’ button on the steering wheel.

“So far I have heard nothing that convinces us that it is illegal,” the FIA’s Charlie Whiting is quoted as saying.

He is not, however, ruling out an eventual change of heart.

“As we understood more about how the mass damper worked and as more arguments came onto the table, eventually we could no longer turn a blind eye,” said the Briton.

Still, Whiting is not expecting a post-race protest in Malaysia.

“I think everyone understands that that is not good for the sport,” he said.

So far, McLaren is staying out of the fight, with Auto Motor und Sport believing that Martin Whitmarsh “will not wage war against his engine supplier”.

Nonetheless, Mercedes boss Ross Brawn is more than unimpressed with the warring trio.

“There are a massive amount of things we do with DRS, so to pick on one thing and say ‘We don’t like that very much as we haven’t thought about it’, is wrong,” the Briton charged.

 Ross Brawn has scolded Mercedes’ critics as a protest threat continues to hang over the Australian grand prix.
Lotus is concerned the silver W03 features illegal aerodynamic solutions, and on Saturday raised the prospect of post-qualifying or post-race protests.

“It’s an option,” boss Eric Boullier is quoted by the Sun.

“All I can say is Red Bull and ourselves do not believe the Mercedes system is legal.”

Asked about the prospect of an official protest, Mercedes’ Brawn is quoted by Germany’s Auto Motor und Sport: “That would be very disappointing.

“If someone believes a car is illegal, then he should protest before the weekend, not afterwards.”

Brawn’s argument is that a pre-event protest gives the FIA a chance to respond and, if necessary, request a team make changes to its car before official results are filed.

He continued: “We have always informed the FIA about what we are doing.

“On Wednesday of this week they took a close look at the system in our garage and found it to be legal.

“As long as the FIA has this opinion, we will use the system,” said the Briton.

Brawn, in fact, smells diversionary tactics, amid earlier speculation about the legality of some exhaust solutions — notably Red Bull’s.

“The discussion about our system has diverted the focus from the exhaust issue,” he agreed.

Interestingly, McLaren has stayed out of the debate so far, stating simply on Saturday that it will not join a Lotus and Red Bull protest.

Team boss Martin Whitmarsh has now revealed his designers are working on something similar.

“We think we know what to do,” Auto Motor und Sport quotes him saying. “In general it is difficult with the limited space in a formula one car to integrate systems at a later date.

“But I don’t think we are going to have problems,” added Whitmarsh.

Allan McNish is confident that Paul di Resta will get a place in Formula 1. Only the political game must play the Scot well.
As the replacement and occasional Friday driver for Force India Paul di Resta has already one foot in Formula 1, the last step is still missing, and many believe that to follow the Scot Tonio Liuzzi as a race driver with Force India will be. But nothing is certain yet, but the former Formula 1 driver Allan McNish believes his compatriot will do it, he should have the political side of the elite class under control.

“If you look at the error looks to have made the Sutil and Liuzzi in the last race, one might say, Paul has good arguments to out there are. Unfortunately, there is much politics in the motor sport and Formula 1 is now completely on the top, it is not about the drivers’ performance. But I hope that Paul will be classified soon in the list of the Scots in Formula 1, “said McNish, the Daily Record.
TMS

F1′s harsh spotlight of the international media is shining on Ferrari and Fernando Alonso, but also the regulation prohibiting team orders.

In a frosty post-race press conference at Hockenheim, some reporters warned Spaniard Alonso he now risks winning a “dirty” championship, comparing his win at the hands of an illegal team order to his victory at Singapore in 2008.

“That’s your opinion,” the Ferrari driver told them.

Team orders, of course – dating back to the gentleman racer’s days when number two drivers would pull into the pits to hand over their cars – are nothing new.

“This was just handled very badly,” said Lotus’ Mike Gascoyne.

And Ferrari’s handling in Germany, with Felipe Massa ordered aside by way of a coded message from apologetic engineer Rob Smedley, fuelled the media’s fire.

“I am glad that the media in the paddock are kind of like our police,” remarked Alex Wurz.

But according to Spain’s Marca sports daily, “the English press showed no mercy” for a driver who clashed so memorably with Lewis Hamilton back in 2007.

The Sunday Express called Alonso and Ferrari “dirty, thieving cheats”, while even the milder Daily Telegraph admitted that the World Motor Sport Council could in theory disqualify the famous team from formula one at an August meeting.

“A suspension for a number of races is another possibility,” said the Daily Mail.

Triple world champion Niki Lauda scolded Alonso for blatantly denying he had won the race thanks to a team order.  The Independent newspaper said “nobody was fooled” by Alonso’s argument that he wasn’t aware of the fix.

“I’ve never heard a driver talk such bullshit.  He has no character,” said Austrian great Lauda.

Dr Helmut Marko, under fire for some recent decisions at Red Bull, revelled in the change of fortune.

“It is unbelievable how awkwardly they demonstrated who is their number one.  The FIA must react with a drastic punishment,” he is quoted by Blick.

The Swiss newspaper’s correspondent agreed: “There are different ways for Alonso to return to the throne.  Lying and cheating should not be one of them.”

Even the usually partisan AS newspaper remarked: “Alonso deserved to win the German grand prix, but not like this.  Domenicali has confirmed his true ineptitude by giving Massa obvious team orders that are prohibited by the rules.”

Said Brazil’s Folha de S.Paulo: “It was an insult to the sport.”

Rio de Janeiro’s Lance added: “We regret writing it, but from Massa it was a lack of courage.”

Rubens Barrichello, whose move for Michael Schumacher in 2002 motivated the team order ban, said: “I will speak to Felipe myself.  Nothing has changed at Ferrari.

“I think you can read my opinion better from my face,” he stormily told Brazilian radio Jovem Pan.

Said French newspaper Liberation: “Ferrari is a team unlike another; when not undermined by political intrigue, they shoot themselves in the foot.”

La Libre wondered how the FIA is going to react at the World Motor Sport Council: “Would Jean Todt dare punish his old team for a practice he applied himself?  We honestly doubt it.”

Another side of the story is what Renault’s customer engine boss Fabric Lom described on Europe 1 radio as the “hypocrisy” of the current regulations.

Agreed Italy’s Corriere dello Sport: “It is fair to recognise that the problem is in the regulations.”

Rome daily Il Tempo said Ferrari “did the right thing in the wrong way”, and Spain’s El Mundo said the team order ban is “a regulation that penalises team interests”.

Italy’s Autosprint marvelled that Ferrari was “fined for teamwork!”

Said Britain’s Telegraph: “Ferrari were caught and they must pay.  But the rule is unenforceable.  To pretend otherwise is deluded.”

Mercedes’ Norbert Haug does not quite agree: “We need to think of the spectators.  They want to see fights on the track, not these actions.

“The different teams have different attitudes about team orders.”

To the Spanish press, Alonso argued: “The ones who pay us are the team, not the newspapers or anyone else, and now Ferrari is taking 43 points back to Italy.

“And that is what we have to do — what is best for the team.  On Friday I was faster, I was second in qualifying and faster than Felipe in the race.  I don’t think the slower driver won this race,” he added.