F1 2011 season, after 3 races

Well, we should have had 4 by now but Bahrain was axed. It may return, though it seems a little unlikely. A shame to lose a race but if we had to lose one then Bahrain is not the hardest blow to bear.

I’m going to take a general approach rather than looking at each race specifically, as there are already post-race reviews up.

Red Bull clearly have the best car. It’s the fastest and in most regards it’s highly reliable. Well, for Vettel. Webber has faced some sort of reliability failing at every race and has done well to score good points despite this. Vettel, in stark contrast to 2010, started with near perfect reliability and performance and deserves his massive lead. However, Red Bull is not invincible. Its KERS breaks down frequently and has a problem with overheating, and Webber usually needs an extra pit stop per race due to tyre mangling.

McLaren made an enormous, staggering leap forward from pre-season testing, when their car was as magnificent and impressive as Crassus’ performance at Carrhae, to the season itself. Their car is in a strong second place, close enough to challenge Red Bull for podiums and, with fortune/superior strategy, wins. They’re also a cut above the likes of Ferrari, Renault and Mercedes. McLaren’s job now is to stop Red Bull running away with the title. Hamilton may well be Vettel’s closest rival this season, though it’ll be interesting to see how Button does.

Ferrari did the exact opposite of McLaren. They seemed ultra-competitive in testing, perhaps even better than the Red Bull, only to be a bit lacklustre in the season. The car just isn’t quick enough. On the plus side, Massa’s got his head screwed on right and has beaten Alonso twice out of three attempts, aided by Alonso ramming Hamilton in Malaysia. Ferrari have less than half of Red Bull’s points (50 to 105), highlighting the task they have. But, things looked impossible for Alonso last year and he came within a whisker of winning the title.

Renault have produced a cracker of a car which has delivered 2 podiums in 3 races. It’s a great shame that Kubica was not able to drive for the team, and here’s hoping he recovers fully and gets back for 2012. Heidfeld and Petrov seem to veer from the ridiculous to the sublime, scoring either no points or standing on the podium. Their car is very tasty, with a superb start, but is a bit off the pace in qualifying. The title is out of reach but they are doing well in their bid to beat Mercedes and become the 4^th team (32 points to 16).

Mercedes are still not living up to the memory of the Brawn team. The car is just not fast enough and they’ve had some bad luck, with both drivers victims of misfortune in Australia. However, it is a very good car in a straight line and Schumacher’s been starting brilliantly. It was great to watch him and Alonso duelling in China. If they don’t develop some pace soon, Rosberg will probably seek a faster team.

Sauber have made a good start, and only failed to score in the first race due to a silly technicality which meant they broke the rules without gaining any speed advantage. Kobayashi seems to have been passed more than expected, but Perez is doing very well in his first season, though he could perhaps tone down the aggression a touch.

Likewise, Force India have a class act in di Resta, who is punching above his weight with the car and keeping his team mate, Sutil, honest. Toro Rosso are also doing alright, without setting the world alight.

The lowest three teams, Lotus, Virgin and HRT, are still way off the pace. I hope they’re able to up their game. Personally, I’d be quite happy if HRT and perhaps Virgin were axed.

So, how are the rule changes working?

KERS is back, and works the same as before. Recycling energy used when braking, it affords a brief 80bhp power boost to promote overtaking or defending. It works pretty well, though the system can break, leaving a car lumbered with a hefty weight and no performance boost.

DRS is a new, simple, cheap system which allows a car to basically go faster in a straight line when within 1 second of the preceding car, on a specified straight. It produces a bigger advantage than KERS and the two can (and often are) used at the same time.

I like KERS. And I like DRS. But I think having both is a little over the top and would prefer DRS to be axed.

However, both of the above pale in comparison to the impact brought about by the new Pirelli tyres. Pirelli were given a brief to increase degradation so that strategy and tyre management became critical, as in Montreal last year. Excepting that instance, 2010 saw highly durable, reliable Bridgestones which almost always meant that teams opted for a single stop. Pirelli have given us something new, a fantastically exciting Chinese GP and put strategy ahead of qualifying in terms of importance.

I do wonder how the race in Montreal will go, given that even the granite-like Bridgestone tyres needed multiple stops.

I’m also glad the 107% rule has been reintroduced. It was breached by both HRTs in Australia, and they were not permitted to start the race. Quite right too.

The next race starts on the 8^th of May, and is in Turkey. This may well be the last race at the circuit, which is one of the better new ones. Let’s hope my rubbish betting improves somewhat.

Morris Dancer

In search of the Braggites: a tale of three counties

Last summer, I looked at how the Labour vote in Conservative/Lib Dem marginal had fallen to far lower levels than occurred to the Lib Dem vote in Labour/Tory marginals or to the Conservative vote in Lib Dem/Labour marginals:

http://politicalbetting.blogspot.com/2010/08/conundrum-for-labour-strategists.html

I concluded that if this was as a result of tactical voting for Lib Dem candidates by Labour supporters, as recommended by Billy Bragg, the Conservatives could look forward to substantial numbers of seat gains at the next election if Labour voters decided not to continue with their tactical voting.

The critical question, therefore, is to establish just how much tactical voting of this type was taking place, and then we might be able to assess how much unravelling we could expect. Easier said than done. PB superstar Andrea suggested to me that I might look at the overall vote tallies in whole counties at successive elections and this is what I have done.

Andrea suggested that I looked at Devon. At the 2010 election, there were 12 constituencies in Devon. 601,300 voters made their way to the polling booths and 85,556 of these cast their vote for a Labour candidate: 14.2% of the vote.

No two general elections are exactly comparable, but 1992 is probably the easiest election to compare with 2010. The Conservatives weren't too far ahead of Labour and, importantly for our purposes, the Lib Dems were new on the scene so a culture of tactical voting would not be as mature as it is now. How have things changed?

There were 11 seats in Devon in 1992. 638,104 voters cast their vote and 122,854 of these voted Labour: 19.3% of the vote. Evidently, there has been a decline in the Devon Labour vote in that time – but of course, Labour polled better nationally in 1992 than in 2010, so that doesn't prove much. Labour polled 29.0% nationally in 2010 and 34.4% nationally in 1992. Making the appropriate adjustments, we could have expected the Devonwide Labour vote to have been 16.2% in 2010 if there had been no additional tactical voting. Since it was in fact 14.2%, that suggests that there might have been some additional tactical voting, but it's hardly overwhelming evidence.

What if we strip out those seats where Labour was out of contention? Labour's vote in Devon is very efficiently distributed. On its puny vote share in 2010, Labour managed two MPs out of 12 (by comparison, the Conservatives tallied 16.7% of the vote in Scotland and managed one MP out of 59). Labour was a reasonably close second in a third seat. Nicely done.

In 1992, Labour had one MP and finished a reasonably close second in three other seats. Not quite so efficient, but then it had to overtake the Lib Dems in all four of those seats. A pretty good effort really.

The numerate will have realised that means that Labour's performance elsewhere in Devon was at joke party levels. In the remaining nine seats in 2010, 463,633 voters cast their votes, but only 36,280 of these were Labour votes: 7.8% of the vote. Labour was pushed into fourth in two of these constituencies by UKIP. This sounds strongly indicative of tactical voting. Was it?

In 1992, there were seven Devon seats in which Labour finished third. It gathered 55,221 votes out of 431,028 cast in those seats): 12.8% of the vote. So it should be noted that Labour was already performing dismally in rural Devon, even then. If we make the same adjustment to the vote share to allow for the differential performance of Labour nationally, we would have expected it to have got 10.8% of the votes in these constituencies. This suggests that an additional 3% of Labour's vote has been lost to tactical voting – not as much as I originally might have expected to see.

Of course, Devon is just one county, so I thought it worthwhile to look at Dorset and Somerset. In Dorset, Labour didn't take a single seat in either 1992 or 2010. In 1992, Labour took 54,613 out of 407,472 votes (13.4% of the votes), while in 2010 it took 47,594 out of 391,111 votes (12.2% of the votes). Allowing for its relative performance at these two elections, Labour actually did better in Dorset in 2010 than it did in 1992, and this remains true even if you strip out the 2010 result in South Dorset (where Labour previously held the seat in 2005). Billy Bragg's appeal for more Labour tactical votes appears to have fallen on deaf ears: a prophet without honour in his homeland.

Somerset tells a different story. Labour was neither first nor second in any seat in Somerset in either 1992 or 2010. So you might expect to see more evidence of tactical voting here. And you do. In 1992, 38,561 Labour voters dutifully wasted their vote out of 297,857 voters: 12.9% of the vote. In 2010, this shrivelled to 22,163 out of 286,279: 7.7% of the vote. You would have expected to see 10.9% of the voters going red in 2010 if national trends had been followed. The Lib Dems now hold four seats out of five in Somerset, where in 1992 they held one. It seems reasonable to conclude that tactical voting has increased.

What can we conclude? First, that Labour have polled appallingly in these three counties (outside Plymouth and Exeter) for a generation. There comes a point where a Labour tactical voter is indistinguishable from a lifelong Lib Dem voter. Secondly, that there has been increased tactical voting, at least in Devon and Somerset, but that it has been on nothing like the scale that some, including me, have assumed. Maybe 10 Lib Dem seats nationally are at risk to the Tories from an unwinding of the increased tactical voting, but to lose more, the Lib Dems would have to lose long term Lib Dem voters as well as reds in yellow clothing.

Which leaves one further question: just who are all these Labour supporters who claim to have voted tactically for the Lib Dems?

antifrank

China: post-race analysis

Since Malaysia:

Both Alonso and his best friend forever Hamilton got slammed with 20 second time penalties (the former for ramming the latter, who got his for apparently moving around too much on track to stop the Spaniard passing him). This made no difference to Alonso, who stayed 6^th, but put Hamilton 8^th, behind Kobayashi.

Here’s the analysis from Brundle: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9453362.stm

Qualifying Summary:

The most exciting and unpredictable session so far, at the back of the grid anyway. Webber remains assailed by dire luck, lacking KERS, suffering a pre-qualifying electrical failure and then having the team put him out on hard tyres which saw him qualify a staggeringly rubbish 18^th.

Renault continues to veer from the ridiculous to the sublime. Heidfeld, fresh from a podium in Malaysia, qualified a pitiful 16^th. Petrov got a great Q2 lap time but then his engine died on track and the result was that he’s 10^th and 11 drivers were on track all at once to try and qualify for Q3. In Renault’s favour is their ultra-brilliant start and their very good raw pace, so the race may not be an utter disaster.

Schumacher continues his rather lacklustre qualifying performance in 14^th, but his young gun team mate got an excellent 4^th. I’m sure Rosberg will be keen to leapfrog his elder colleague, who has 2 points to Rosberg’s 0.

The Toro Rossos and di Resta did very well. I must say I’m tremendously impressed with the rookie Scot, who has outqualified Sutil at every race so far and matched him for points. However, I suspect they may prove easy prey to Petrov off the line.

During Q2 I thought it might be a close three way battle for pole, and was quietly hopeful of my 5.4 tip on Hamilton. Then I saw Vettel mercilessly crush his rivals, yet again, and felt a bit moronic. I think I’ll revert to only offering pole tips post-P3. Vettel’s 0.7s margin of victory is enormous. It also shows what a disaster Webber had. 1^st and 18^th for Red Bull. I think the key is the combination of Vettel and the car. It is a very good car, but he’s the best driver on the grid and together, they’re seemingly unstoppable.

One important factor that the commentary team highlighted was the possibility that lower temperatures, as well as decreasing tyre degradation generally, help Red Bull especially. This may be related to the car generally and also the specific heating problems with KERS. Vettel was fast enough to easily get pole, even without KERS (worth around 0.3s per lap), but if it fails during the race he’ll have all the weight with none of the performance, and the McLarens just might be able to make it a contest.

Race Summary:

Betting-wise, a disaster. This was mostly because I wholly misjudged the start and didn’t realise Webber could have KERS mended. Neither Renault got a great start, Petrov made up only a single place and rarely looked like getting in the top 6. Webber was poor for the first half of the race but then raced through the field to get a fantastic 3^rd. Vettel had his worse start yet, dropping to 3^rd from the line but recovering well to get a 2^nd. My supposition in backing 10 plus seconds for the victory margin was Vettel staying first and steaming into a big lead.

I also, rather less than brilliantly, forgot to try hedging the bets, though I suspect only the Webber one may’ve been hedgeable at probably poor odds, so it probably didn’t make much difference.

The start was very exciting and at odds with my predictions. At the sharp end, both McLarens zoomed past Vettel, who had a dire start. He was also, briefly, passed by Rosberg but regained the place swiftly. A little further back, Massa overtook Alonso, and Schumacher had another staggeringly good start. Neither Renault made up much ground, and nor did Webber.

We then entered a very complicated race as teams went for differing strategies, with most opting for 3 stops but a few (including Vettel) trying just 2. This was further complicated by the fact that a few drivers (Hamilton, Petrov and Webber) had 2 sets of new soft tyres (Hamilton had deliberately only used 1 set in qualifying for this reason, Petrov and Webber did not participate in Q3, hence saving their tyres).

At various points of the race numerous drivers and teams looked like possible contenders for the win or a podium spot. Massa’s early pass on Alonso, backed up by some good driving thereafter, saw him return to some better form after his crash two seasons ago. He briefly led, and in the end got a good 6^th. Alonso never really looked in contention, but did have quite a few entertaining jousts with Schumacher, the pair ending up 7^th and 8^th. Schumacher made up 6 places from his starting position, and Rosberg got 5^th to secure Mercedes best race result this season.

Renault had a poor race. Petrov did make up a place, but Heidfeld did not get into the points. Disappointing from a team that previously had a pair of podiums. Toro Rosso also had a rough ride, with neither driver staying in the top 10 after an excellent qualifying.

So, what about the big boys? For a time a 1-2 for McLaren seemed possible, but Webber’s fresh tyres and raw pace enabled him to overhaul Button and nab 3^rd, a stunning result from 18^th on a grid, especially given his KERS didn’t work for part of the race. McLaren got their first win with Hamilton surviving a pre-formation lap scare when his car wouldn’t start, and 1^st and 4^th is a decent result. Vettel was compromised by a combination of a start slower than a Super Aguri in quicksand and the wrong strategy (2 stops rather than 3). Ironically, Webber’s higher tyre degradation and extra softs probably made certain his 3-stop strategy which paid huge dividends.

Something for both McLaren and Red Bull to feel thrilled about, and for Vettel and Button to rue.

Musings:

Turkey is next, but there’s a three week hiatus, so I’ll probably write an interim article about how the season’s shaping up and how the various rule changes are working out and affecting things.

The qualifying failure was mostly me being daft and betting pre-P3, which I shall not do again. Racing failure was just a huge misjudgement and a little bit of bad luck (namely Vettel choosing now to finally have a bad start).

Forget qualifying. Strategy is now the king of F1. Hamilton really did learn a trick from his Malaysian misadventure, and his cunning plan to save a set of softs and slightly sacrifice grid position was inspired. But, this can also work, accidentally, for a chap out of person such as Webber. We ought to watch out for this in the future.

I am a bit displeased with a 0 from 4 for this race. However, it is early days, we’re just 3 races into a probably 19 race season (still no word for certain on Bahrain). The next set of races are European, so P3 should be at a decent time, enabling, hopefully, some green qualifying sessions.

Morris Dancer

“A choice between having cancer and AIDS” : Mario Vargas Llosa

The Peruvian Presidential Election 2011

On Sunday 10 April 2011 Peruvians went to the polls to elect their new president. If no candidate receives 50% of the vote a second round of voting involving the top two candidates will take place on Sunday June 5^th. Under the Peruvian constitution current President Alan Garcia is prohibited from seeking successive re-election.

With about 93% of the vote counted (the final results won’t be known for a few days due to the logistics of counting votes from the Atacama desert across the Andes to the Amazon basin) the results are:

1. Ollanta Humala Gana Perú* (Populist Left) 31.7%

2. Keiko Fujimori Fuerza 2011 (Populist Right) 23.5%

3. Pedro Pablo Fuczynski (PPK) Alianza por el Gran Cambio (Centre Right) 18.7%

4. Alejandro Toledo Perú Posible (Centre Left) 15.5%

5. Luis Castaneda Solidaridad Nacional (Right) 9.9%

* The party labels used are an umbrella term for a coalition of parties eg Gana Perú is made up of the (Partido Nacionalista Peruano), the Socialist Party (Partido Socialista), the Peruvian Communist Party (Partido Comunista Peruano), the Revolutionary Socialist Party (Partido Socialista Revolucionario) and the Political Movement Socialist Voice (Movimiento Político Voz Socialista).

It is clear therefore that the second round runoff election will be between Humala and Fujimori. This should be interesting to say the least – Humala came to prominence in October 2000 when as a then Lieutenant Colonel he led a military uprising against the President Alberto Fujimori – the imprisioned father of Keiko. To say that there is bad blood between the two would put it mildly!!

In the 2006 election Humala recieved 30.6% of the first round vote before losing in the second round to Alan Garcia gaining 47.4%. The slight improvement in his vote and the divsions amongst his opponents lead me to believe that Humala will win the second round.

Looking at a breakdown of the vote we can see where the election was won and lost. Of the top three Humala succeeded by winning big in his heartland of southern Andean Peru stacking up 55-60% of the vote in Cusco and Puno for example and a massive 86% in Moquequa, whilst ensuring a steady spread across the rest of Peru. Fujimori was the most consistant candidate gaining 18-27% pretty much everywhere and leading in the Lima exterior and Ica regions of central Peru. PPK´s support was limited vitally entirely to Lima and essentially the upscale districts of San Isidro, Miraflores, La Molina etc. Outside this heartland his performance was dire. This upscale vote can be expected to swing behind (reluctantly) Fujimori. The second round battle will be decided in, what I call “middle Peru” – the forgotten, dusty towns like Ancash, Iquitos and Cajamarca.

An analysis of the campaign

With his second place in 2006, high profile and populist credentials it was certain that Humala would stand. Demonised as a Peruvian Hugo Chavez, who would kick all gringos out of the country, steal your pension and nationise the Banks thus destroying Peru´s booming economy, Humala played a very savvy, understated campaign. Allowing the others to exaggerate and caricature him as an extremist he maintained centre stage whist appearing calm and collect. This culminated in the final and most watch TV debate held on the preceding Sunday 3^rd April at the Sheraton Hotel. In this debate he calmly avoided answering any questions and behaved in a calm almost boring manner. This had the desired effect. It made opposition claims that he was some kind of baby eating Gaddifi / Chavez love-child seem absurd, calmed fears and resulted in a stunning surge in the opinion polls. From being in the high teens and low twenties at the end of March in the days following the debate he hit the 30% becoming the clear front-runner. He has managed to maintain this calm and mild exterior through-out the campaign until the last minute of his post-election address outside the hotel Sonesta El Olivar in San Isidro where he couldn´t resist climaxing with a few viva socialism chants – whilst not quite in the league of Kinnock at the Sheffield Rally in 1992 if I was his opponent I would be using that over and over against him.

Keiko Fujimori ran the most impressive campaign. A Congresswoman since 2006 she broke through achieving national prominence during the trial of her controversial father and formal president Alberto Fujimori. His imprisonment for the maximum 25 years for human rights abuses, corruption and bribery was the foundation for her Fuerza 2011 campaign. The most well organised campaign though, perhaps, least impressive candidate she was the first to actively campaign. This was well rewarded with a pretty consistent 20-25% across most of Peru. Will she be able to achieve 50% plus? This I doubt. The left and centre-left will not forgive her father for his abuse of power, human rights abuses and the Grupo Colina death squad responsible for the murders of many.

Without doubt the most charming of candidates was Pedro Pablo Fuczynski. A former Prime Minister and co-Chairman of the First Boston bank he was the darling of the Lima elite. Yet in spite what the establishment felt was his qualifications for the job he was a lacklustre candidate. Outside Lima city he vote share was pitiful and his campaign can best be encapsulated in a moment of utter farce. Walking through the shanty towns of Lima he was regular accosted by locals, apparently as a result of local superstition about white people, wanting to touch his genitals!! While he smiled and “handled” the situation genially it nevertheless was illustrative of how different and out of touch he appeared to most Peruvians.

As for the other candidates: Alejandro Toledo, convinced that his name-recognition as a previous president and early poll leads would see him to victory led a lazy and moribund campaign which only came to life in the last days; Luis Castaneda, former mayor of Lima, had perhaps the worse campaign imaginable going from 75% approval ratings and first position to fifth less than 10% of the vote.

Anyway I hope you find this all an interesting diversion and if you have any questions please feel free to ask or email.

Macchu Picchu

Horseracing – A Dangerous Game

Peter the Punter on the Grand National

It was as a young boy standing by the rails at Tattenham Corner, Epsom, that I witnessed my first horseracing accident. A horse stumbled and fell coming down the hill. Both horse and rider were trampled by those behind and the jockey was kicked into the timber and concrete running rails. He was stretchered away, unconscious, an arm hanging limp from one side. The hand bore the unmistakeable mark of a hoofprint in crimson where the flesh had been torn from the bone. He no doubt survived, though I doubt the horse did, but it taught me then that horseracing is a very dangerous game.

The lesson has been repeated countless times since, most recently whilst viewing along with several million others the TV coverage of this year’s Grand National. No matter how thrilling the race, the loss of brave and beautiful animals casts a gloom upon the occasion. The two stricken horses in last Saturday’s race were shown unusually clearly by high camera shots as the remaining field sped past the dolled-off fences. Perhaps it was this graphic portrayal of death-at-the-races intruding into the afternoon’s entertainment that prompted stronger than usual calls for the event to be banned. Understandably and predictably, the calls reflected more passion than reason.

The Grand National is not an especially dangerous race. It is extreme, in that it is the longest race in the calendar and the obstacles are unusually large and testing, but these are not the main reasons why jump racing is so risky. Ginger McCain, trainer of three-times Grand National winner Red Rum, nailed it when commenting after the race “It is speed that kills.” Steeplechases run over the minimum trip of two miles are probably the sport’s most dangerous events, since they require precision jumping at high speed over stiff fences. If you really want to eliminate the riskiest races, you would probably start with these and then work your way up through the distances until you get to the longest races, such as the Eider Chase and finally, of course, the National.

Hurdling illustrates the same principle. There are fewer fallers – about one every fourteen runs as opposed to one every seven in steeplechases – but the speeds are generally much faster and the falls therefore more serious. Again, it is the shorter, pacier races which are the more dangerous, rather than the marathons.

There was an unusually high number of finishers in this year’s National - nineteen as against the more typical dozen or so. The winner’s time of just over nine minutes was very quick. The unseasonal warm weather and dry conditions no doubt played their part and probably contributed to both fatalities too. They occurred early, when the horses were travelling at their fastest, as McCain’s dictum might have predicted. Each year the jockeys are warned to take it steady early on but the instruction is not so easy to follow. Racehorses love to race and forty of them gathered before a noisy throng are only too likely to defy the restraints of even the strongest professional jockeys and set too fast a gallop.

Like other dangerous sports, such a motor racing, horseracing has done much over the years to improve safety – for example, the introduction of plastic running rails, vastly improved vetinary and medical facilities, and the redesign and resiting of fences, including the National fences at Aintree, which though still awesome enough are not as tough as they used to be. The reduction in size and difficulty has doubtless contributed to fewer casualties over the years, but it does also to some extent cut the other way. Because the obstacles are easier, the horses take them faster, again increasing the risk.

You cannot get away from it. Horseracing will never be entirely safe. So do you ban it? If you do, you would have to ban all horseracing to be consistent. Fatalities on the flat are commonplace too, although a high proportion occur in training away from the public gaze. And if you ban all horseracing, what about other equine sports and pastimes, such as Eventing, Arab Racing, Pony Trekking or Sunday afternoon cross-country hacking on a tired old nag? None of these activities are particularly safe for man or beast, as participants will well know. And once all these dangerous activities have been banned, what about others where animals regularly suffer death or injury, such as greyhound racing, pigeon fancying and fishing?

Logic and consistency in this matter leads one to some extreme conclusions if you start from the premise that the death of two racehorses is in itself grounds for banning a race. A more practical, sensible and ultimately humane approach would be to continue the process of making it safer and fairer. Knowledgeable followers of the sport will be familiar with the kind of thing. You could for example reduce the length of the run to the first fence, thereby forcing the horses to slow sooner. Greater watering of the course would help too. And field sizes could definitely be reduced.

These are only some suggestions. There are no doubt others which could be introduced without destroying the unique character and appeal of the race. Banning it would serve little purpose however, except to appease certain lobbies and some once-a-year race watchers who wear their heart on their sleeve and their brains somewhere entirely different.

Malaysia: post-race analysis

Since Australia:

The Saubers were found to have been in breach of some finickity regulations regarding their rear wings. This led to both being disqualified, so, sadly, Perez did not get his deserved points finish. However, this did mean the Briton Paul di Resta scored a 10^th place and 1 point in his first ever race.

There was musing from some that KERS would matter more for Malaysia, and a suggestions that the Red Bulls would need to sort out their heating issues and fit the system to do well.

In a new and presumably regular feature, Brundle’s done a brief but informative analysis video of the Australian GP. Well worth a look: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/9437681.stm

Qualifying Summary:

Well, I didn’t see that coming. My view, after P1 and P2, was that Red Bull were a dead cert to take pole, and that, as such, Webber was too long, especially given his previous poles at the circuit. So, I tipped him at 4.3.

But, qualifying was very different to expectations. In Q2 and Q3 both McLarens were very, very competitive, and really challenged for pole. It looked as if Hamilton was to cause an upset, and at the last moment was himself beaten by a perfect lap from Vettel.

The margins were very tight, and the pole-sitter regularly fails to win or to even enter the first corner in the lead. The start tomorrow will be phenomenally exciting. The heat may play havoc with Red Bull’s KERS, tyre degradation will be high and there’s the possibility for showers (though earlier forecasts indicated these may not occur and may be light).

The dominant Red Bulls and McLarens are followed by the substantial slower Renaults and Ferraris, with Rosberg 9^th and Kobayashi 10^th. For anyone but the top four to get a podium spot will be dependent on either reliability issues or extra pit stops (due to degradation and/or changeable weather).

Race Summary:

In betting terms, a good race. I tipped No Safety Car at 2.52 (it actually went as long as 2.9 or 3 pre-race) and it came off. My reasoning was that Malaysia has had very few safety cars, just 2 races from 11 (including today’s) feature such an occurrence, and the weather forecasts were for light showers (which is what we ended up getting). For those interested, I use http://www.weather-forecast.com/ and http://www.wunderground.com/ when considering race and qualifying weather.

My decision was heavily influenced by a handy article (http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2011/4/11891.html) on the official F1 website, and I intend to look at a similar bet in Hungary. If you backed both the single qualifying and single race tips then you’d be ahead overall (hedging made no difference as Webber never got to short enough odds and I did not advocate hedging the race bet).

Now, to the race itself. The start was electrifying, and provided useful confirmation of a few things seen in Australia, but which required a second race to prove were not simply flukes. The Renaults take off like bloody rockets, Vettel had a good start and so did Schumacher. Webber’s dire start was due to a combination of a long opening straight and his total lack of KERS due to a reliability failing.

There was plenty of overtaking and the numerous pit stops made it sometimes difficult to tell who was where precisely. Button will be thrilled with a deserved second after Hamilton suffered first a slow pit stop and then poor pace, and then needed another pit stop.

Webber had a topsy-turvy day of good and bad luck. First his KERS failed and he got passed by every man and his dog on the opening straight. But, he managed to fight back, after a prolonged duel with Kobayashi, and get himself into a decent position. Then Alonso attempted to break the laws of physics and instead broke his own front wing, necessitating pit stops for both himself and Hamilton. But for that, Alonso could’ve gotten the third podium spot.

Vettel’s KERS also broke, midway through the race, but somehow he managed to stay competitive and maintained a small but comfortable lead over Button in the latter stages.

The race saw the McLarens and Red Bulls fairly evenly matched for pace, with Vettel’s blistering first few laps providing him with a lead that ultimately meant Button had no chance to overtake him at the end. The Renaults were competitive in the race itself, though their qualifying pace seems to paint them as merely the leading midfield team. They scored a second consecutive 3^rd, although Petrov failed to finish after his efforts at flight proved unsuccessful.

Ferrari ended up with 5^th and 6^th, though it could have been 3^rd and 6^th. Excepting his inept attempt to pass Hamilton (which he was certain to do, given time) Alonso drove a very good race. The car really isn’t fast enough but the drivers seem to be punching above their weight. If Ferrari can get a grip and produce some upgrades Alonso could yet be a title contender. [Although that would require someone to beat Vettel, at some point].

The tyres did indeed degrade faster than in Australia, with most drivers (barring those afflicted with accidents) opting for 3 stops, but Webber needed 4. I cannot see him having a realistic shot at the championship if this continues. In the colder than expected Australia, a part-time street circuit, he needed to stop 1 more time than Vettel, and the same happened in the hot, humid, purpose-built racetrack in Malaysia. It’s early days, but he cannot give his team mate 20 seconds plus every race and hope to win.

Musings:

The next race is in China, which is tasty for McLaren. It’s also just a week away, minimising any opportunity for upgrades and redesigns.

The Red Bull KERS needs work. It failed pre-race for Webber and mid-race for Vettel, who drove brilliantly to offset any loss in pace. This could compromise the team and drivers if they can’t get it sorted, especially as China has a bloody big straight.

Renault are rubbish at qualifying but tasty in the race, especially at the start. This ought to be remembered for future races.

The Williams has, I think, a 0% completion rate. I’ll try to remember to check the lay odds of being classified, and likewise for HRT.

I imagine China will be broadly similar to Malaysia in terms of qualifying and race pace and the overall result. It’s got a super long straight and occasionally rains, though I’ll check the weather forecast nearer the time (we still have sod all idea about Pirelli wets and intermediates in terms of both grip and durability). Unfortunately P3 is from 4am to 5am and qualifying starts at 7am, so I’m not sure if I’ll offer any qualifying tips.

Morris Dancer

AV – What are the Effects?

There’s been a lot of sound and fury on who’d win and lose from the proposed AV reforms (such as the No2AV claim that effectively Nick Clegg would be the One Man with the One Vote), and it occurred to me that we’ve not had the facts presented in one place.

Whilst some of the arguments over AV have been on the philosophy of the system, much of the undercurrent has been on the party political fallout. With most sides simply guessing.

As it turns out, most of the projections of past elections that have been bandied about over the years aren’t much stronger than educated guesses – Dr Roger Mortimer of MORI has an excellent summary of the AV issues here - which includes much of the facts behind the philosophical discussions as well.

The major issues with projecting these outcomes, he summarises thus:

- Most estimates of how an AV election would turn out assume that voters’ first preferences would be the same as their vote under FPTP. But that is almost certainly not true. The trouble is there is no simple way of finding out or reliably estimating how it will differ at constituency level. How many people are voting tactically (and where) who wouldn’t do so under AV? We know how votes are spread by constituencies at the moment, but we don’t know what the spread of AV first preferences will be.

- Surveys can ask voters what their second (and lower) preferences would be, but we don’t know how this will vary by constituency, which can make all the difference to the election outcome. We certainly can’t assume that, say, Lib Dems in Scotland will split between Labour and the Tories as their second choice precisely the same way as Lib Dems in the South East of England, or that rural and urban are the same.

- Most people don’t really understand alternative electoral systems, so asking them what they would do under a different system may not get accurate answers. Once a new system is in place and they have got the hang of it, they may well vote completely differently to the way they think they would now.

- Parties will behave differently under AV and that may affect the way voters think about them. e.g. If the Lib Dems asked voters in a constituency to give their second preference to the Tories, would that lose them the first preference vote of some left-leaning LibDem voters?

Given those caveats, it’s not surprising to find that some estimates of election results vary between well respected sources. Most are fairly close – I’ve found more than one result for each of the 1983-1997 elections, but all bar the 1997 one are very close to each other. The 1997 one is a pronounced exception, with Conservative seat totals confidently projected at 110, 96 and 70 from three different calculations.

The elections prior to 1983 don’t seem to have had projections made (at least not easily locatable online), but data from the British Election Study (BES) data is now online at the BES Information Site, with data going back to 1964. I’ve run an estimate for the 1979, 1974(October), 1974 (February), 1970, 1966 and 1964 elections.

Enough preamble, what’s the outcome?












Only two elections would have changed their headline result: the October 1974 election would have had Wilson still short of a majority, and 1964 would have seen Home denying Wilson a majority – and the Liberals under Jo Grimond as kingmakers. The reason that the third party has always done better in these projections is that they have (until now) always been preferred to the “other one” of the big two by Con and Lab voters – which may change now they’re in Government.
Who (out of Conservatives and Labour) loses out? It changes – dependant on who is least disliked by Liberal/Lib Dem supporters. This is how it’s happened over the past 46 years:


Net Preference for Con/Lab by Lib/Alliance/LD voters across elections (Source BES 1964-1997, 2001/5 ICM/BBC from Curtice paper, 2010 BES from paper by Sanders et al)

On the above graph, blue corresponds to an advantage for the Tories, red to an advantage for Labour. Current polling suggests that the remaining Lib Dems have a small net pro-Tory preference (that is, the line has crossed back over to the blue side), but 2015 is still a long way off.

Well, that’s what the past looks like – but the big issue with AV is how it will change voting behaviour in the future – with the ability to cast a first preference vote with far less worry about wasting it, will UKIP, the Greens, far left Socialist parties and so on see big boosts in their first preferences? Will we see constituencies where voters have long abandoned hope in their first preference major party suddenly shift sentiment? Subsequent elections will be based on the now-different results that AV will produce and we’ll enter uncharted waters. One thing that does leap out – more constituencies change hands under AV projections than under FPTP ones, so election night may prove rather more anxious for MPs and more entertaining for the rest of us.

Footnote for sources: For this article, I’ve taken the projected totals for the 1983-2010 elections (using John Curtice’s projections at the BBC website here as my starting point. The ERS present different totals for 1983-1997 here, again citing Curtice. The third calculation for the most disputed outcome (1997) is here, by Dunleavy, Margetts, O’Duffy and Weir. For the 2010 election, I’ve used the paper by Sanders, Clarke, Stewart and Whiteley (available here, but an alternative is presented by the ERS and presented by the Guardian here)