The EU and Britain

The EU

The EU is in crisis.  Scrub that, the EU is in crises.  It is currently undergoing at least four different crises simultaneously:

1.     An economic growth crisis

2.     A debt crisis

3.     A crisis of purpose

4.     A democratic crisis

Others will probably add to this list.  These are lousy times for the EU.

The first two will probably sort themselves out, sooner or later (my money is on later).  Their significance is mainly as mood music for the other two.  When times are good, the public won’t care very much whether legislation has a true mandate or whether the EU has a clear way forward.  But when times are bad, the public mood will turn sour and every aspect will be examined in minute detail.  This is what is happening now.

So for me, the two important crises are the crisis of purpose and the democratic crisis.  Let’s take these in order.

Crisis of purpose

Since its foundation in the 1950s, the EU has had overlapping purposes of varying degrees of salience at varying times:

1.     To foster peaceful co-operation between its member states

2.     To act as a bulwark against Communism

3.     To help its poorer members become more economically developed

4.     To develop economic prosperity for its members

5.     To project European presence and set European standards for a wider world

In the immediate post-war generation, peaceful co-operation was incredibly important.  Continental Europe had seen three wars between Germany and France in 75 years, and the continent had been devastated.  But time has passed, and it is now nearly 70 years since the end of the Second World War.  Only the very oldest European citizens remember the war, and the thought of war between member EU states (certainly in the west) is barely conceivable.  In the hierarchy of wants of international politics, peace is now taken as read. 

The Berlin Wall fell nearly 25 years ago.  Whatever the EU is for now, it is not against Communism.

The EU has historically done well at helping its poorer member states become more economically developed.  But the economic growth crisis and the debt crisis have put these achievements in jeopardy.  Greece, Hungary, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Cyprus would not regard the EU as offering them much on this front at present.  So the two economic crises feed into the crisis of purpose.

And so they do with the fourth purpose.  For nearly 60 years, the EU has encouraged much greater trade between its member states – mostly successfully.  But at a time when economic growth in member states is weak, non-existent or worse, that purpose looks thin.

What this means is that in practice, most EU citizens can see only one aspect of the EU functioning at present, which is the projection of the EU presence onto a wider world.  This is not healthy for any institution, because the public will reasonably conclude that the prime beneficiaries of the EU are the politicians and the bureaucrats. 

This in turn leads onto...

The democratic crisis

The EU is an unwieldy beast, owing to its topsy-like development.  That’s not that unusual – many national states grew in a similar way (and quite a few of them had revolutions to establish the boundaries between different competing interests).  But different decisions in the EU require agreement between member states in different proportions, votes of the EU Parliament of different proportions or combinations of the two.  We have never been given a clear underlying principle as to when the EU should decide to intervene or through what mechanism – because there is none.

As a result, a lot of decisions get taken in the EU without any clear public backing for the mechanism under which they are taken.  At a domestic level, voters are used to the idea that they might not support the current government but that government has a mandate for doing what it is doing.  Citizens do not identify particularly at an EU-wide level, particularly when decisions are made that conflict with national priorities.

This has always been a problem for the EU, but is especially a problem at a time when voters don’t see many tangible benefits from the EU.

Britain

So far, I have mentioned Britain only once – in the title.  This is quite deliberate.  In Britain, far too much time is expended on considering Britain’s problems with the EU, when the big story at the moment is the EU’s problems.  And Britain’s optimal relationship with a successful EU would be a very different proposition from Britain’s optimal relationship with a struggling EU.

Britain has always had a different view of the varying purposes of the EU that I listed above from other member states.  It was never devastated by war in the way that France and Germany had been, because it was never invaded.  Britain was always more outward-looking than other member states, owing in large part to its history of Empire.  It was fiercely anti-Communist when this was relevant, and approved of helping poorer European countries (it still does) but this was a second order aim for it.

Britain was always in it primarily for the money – though it was happy to project European presence onto a wider world if that helped Britain remain relevant and influential.  So while the EU was prospering, it was able to put up with the empire-building regulation that came out of Brussels.  It was part of the tariff for admission for access to a more deeply integrated community.  The four fundamental freedoms were of great importance to Britain.

But the EU is now stalled economically.  Britain also is flatlining.  Does Britain continue to benefit from the EU or could it do better elsewhere? 

The answer to this question does not lie in Britain.  The answer lies in where the EU would be heading with or without Britain.

Without Britain, the EU would almost certainly become more protectionist.  One of the main voices in favour of free trade would have been removed from the EU.  The EU would become more French-influenced and more southern.  It would be more explicitly anti-banker and anti-City.  Whether or not we maintained some form of free trade arrangement with the EU (within the EEA, EFTA or entirely freestanding, and I expect we would), the scope of that arrangement would probably not be as great as it otherwise would be, and we could expect to see soft barriers put in Britain’s way.  These barriers would be especially strong in the area of services, which is particularly unfortunate given that the services sector of Britain’s economy is its strongest suit.

So we should definitely stay in?  Not so fast.  We need to consider where the EU would be heading with Britain.  And the direction of travel at present is also alarming.  The Eurozone has been integrating rapidly in the last couple of years – it has had no choice – and is going to need to do more.  With the continuing need for fiscal transfers between Eurozone member states, there is going to be a need for more enforceable financial discipline.  This in turn is likely to lead to more integration of taxation.  The financial transaction tax is likely to be only the start.  The Eurozone states will – unless the matter is addressed vigorously right now – inevitably pre-decide matters among themselves, leaving those outside to scrabble to form a blocking minority.  Progress without the Eurozone bloc would be impossible.  Britain would only ever be a brake in future.

Worse, Britain has lost a lot of influence within the EU in recent years.  Other EU member states are now ignoring past conventions of not overriding member states in areas where they are pre-eminent, at least so far as Britain’s financial services industry is concerned.  This is in large part Britain’s own fault, but the rest of the EU is also being shortsighted.  If they want to keep Britain as a member, they have to reach a stable accommodation with Britain which allows Britain to opt out of many aspects of developing EU law far more easily than it can do at present. 

And there’s the key word: if.  Other EU member states have not really engaged with the question whether they want Britain to remain in the EU.  They have got very used to tantrums from London, and have quite enough other problems to be getting on with without worrying about how the world looks from across the Channel.

But the problem is not confined to Britain.  Other non-Eurozone countries will be looking for similar protection against Eurozone dominance.  So whether the EU likes it or not, it is going to have to decide how to accommodate those member states who do not wish to or cannot join the Eurozone.  It is hardly as if they are all supplicants.  Sweden and Denmark are in a very different position from Hungary and Romania.

This goes right the way back to my original point about the EU’s crises, and in particular its crisis of purpose.  What is the EU there for?  The EU needs to revitalise the concepts of peaceful co-operation and developing economic prosperity for its members: all of its members.  If it wants to develop a European-wide demos, it needs to make sure that it works on a European-wide basis, rather than for a few preferred member states.  The concept of subsidiarity needs to be revisited with much more intellectual rigour – and then observed strictly.  That might be enshrined in law by retreating in quite a few areas from the idea of Qualified Majority Voting back to voting by unanimity.  This would result in less law, but law that was not vigorously opposed at national level.  If we want the EU to have the moral as well as the legal authority to intervene in member states, it must intervene more judiciously.

Is the EU capable of such change?  Candidly, I doubt it.  But it needs to be tried.  What if that fails?  Much depends on how it fails. 

Britain could have joined the intellectual leadership of the EU if it could resist the temptation on every occasion to throw rocks at the other member states.  But there are too many otherwise-sensible British people whose pupils dilate and throw back their heads to howl, the moment the full moon of the EU appears from behind the clouds.

So I find myself, rather to my surprise, believing that David Cameron has got essentially the right policy on the next stage with the EU, though I should stress that I don’t believe that he’s got to that position by careful consideration of the geopolitical concerns but purely through (largely misconceived) attempts at internal party management.  But sometimes people can do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

antifrank

Spain: post-race analysis

That was a frustrating race. As a spectator, the first half was pretty good but the latter half less so as substantial gaps opened up at the sharp end (although there was still some action further down the field). As a gambler, I’m also frustrated. Raikkonen had a slightly bad start and that may’ve compromised his victory hopes, but even if he’d started better and still finished second I think he would’ve gotten much closer and the hedge may’ve been matched. On race pace the Ferrari and Lotus were fairly closely matched. Hard to be certain if it was just bad luck or also a misjudgement.

Another red weekend, I’m afraid. Although things appear less topsy-turvy than last year I’ve not been doing all that well. Still, at least I got one qualifying bet right (hedged, anyway) and the result was nice for my title bets (more on that near the end).

The start was almost as bad as it could’ve been for me. Both Vettel and Alonso passed Hamilton, who had an unusually poor start, whereas Raikkonen dropped a place and got trapped behind the slower car for some time. Rosberg, at least, held up Vettel and Alonso initially before beginning an inexorable march backwards.

Button had a bad start, going backwards, and so did Webber (unsurprisingly). Perez leapt forward a few places but it may be Massa who had the best of starts. From 9th (demoted there due to impeding someone in qualifying) he leapt up to about sixth which he briefly duelled over with Perez before securing.

The Mercedes is a strange beast. Untouchable in qualifying, it was appalling in the race. Hamilton despondently muttering on the radio “Now I’ve been passed by a Williams” rather summed it up.

The Ferrari, by contrast, looked extremely nice. Both Alonso and Massa started well and then capitalised upon that, aided by a very fast, reliable car. Lotus is slightly harder to assess because Raikkonen was held up by Hamilton somewhat early on and he ran a different strategy (3 stops rather than 4) compared to the prancing horse. Grosjean’s suspension failed, forcing him to retire and meaning we can’t look at his pace/position for comparison.

The Red Bull was clearly the third best car today. On the same strategy as Raikkonen and with an early advantage due to a better start Vettel ended up some way down the road in 4th.

Mercedes needs to sort their car out. Three poles in a row, the best car in qualifying and just the one podium, with zero wins. It’s not good enough. Rosberg slid from pole to 6th and Hamilton went all the way from 2nd to 12th. Even allowing for a dodgy start that’s atrocious.

Force India had an ok day, with Di Resta finishing 7th, although Sutil was only 13th. McLaren should be fairly happy with 8th and 9th and no on-track fireworks between their drivers and Ricciardo did well to nab the final point.

I feel a bit sorry for Gutierrez, who qualified about 16th and then got a 3 place grid penalty and just missed out on the points in 11th. However, that will encourage him and it’s good to see him showing some pace.

Raikkonen was 9.3s off Alonso at the end. I do feel that he could’ve contested the win but for the poor start, but that sort of thing happens and it’s all part of the game, so there’s no point complaining.

On the plus side, I think it’s bloody mental that he’s still 7.2 for the title. The title now appears to be a 3 horse race. Vettel and Alonso are 2.5 (ish) each. Although already green on Raikkonen I’m going to put a few more quid on him because those odds are stupid. He’s had a win and something like four podiums. Here are the driver standings:

Vettel 89

Raikkonen 85

Alonso 72

Constructors’:

Red Bull 131

Ferrari 117

Lotus 111

I’ve also (previously) backed Ferrari at about 3.9 for the Constructors’. If the price drops a little I’ll see about hedging that.

It’s slightly ironic that the bet I almost didn’t make was the only one that remotely paid off. Right now hedging is still green but (overall) a bet-and-forget approach would put you into the red. Not too pleased with how things are going, but hopefully Monaco can be a little better.

Apparently the third sector of Spain is a great guide for Monaco pace, so that may be useful for qualifying betting. The next race is in a fortnight.

Morris Dancer

Spain: pre-race

Well, that was immensely surprising and interesting from a spectator’s perspective and immensely disappointing from a betting one. I was more confident than usual of Vergne getting through. He matched Di Resta’s pace in two sectors but failed in the third and got nudged out. The Massa tip was just a big misjudgement on my part, but the hedge got partially met, to the extent that that bet ended up being green.

Without hedging it’s s straightforward two stake loss, and with it was a small loss (for stakes of £10 the loss was £1.46). That’s not abysmal, but at the same time I’d rather have a better result than avoiding calamity.

Kudos to Mr. Nigel, whose 11/1 spot on Rosberg in the early discussion commentary proved rather inspired.

Q1 was largely predictable, although both Williams got knocked out for the first time this year.

Q2 was very tight. Button had a pretty atrocious performance to finish 14th, ahead of the Saubers, Sutil was a bit below par in 13th for Force India and the two Toro Rossos finished 10th and 11th. Interestingly Perez managed to break into the top 10, and outqualified his team mate for the first time.

Q3 was a bit of a shock. Mercedes locked out the front row, and the commentators pointed out that the last team to do this was the Mercedes forerunner Brawn. However, I wonder whether they’ll be able to make it in the race. Contrary to what I’d heard in P2 in P3 Gary Anderson was saying the fastest chaps on the long runs were Raikkonen, Alonso and Rosberg (although the latter lacked a bit of consistency). I was also a bit surprised Vettel managed 3rd, after which came Raikkonen, Alonso, Massa, Grosjean, Webber, Perez and Di Resta.

I suspect the Ferraris and Lotus will move forward during the race. It’ll be interesting to see how well Mercedes can hold on. Indeed, that’ll be the key to the result and also critical for betting.

So, let’s take a scientific(ish) approach. The hard compound is new, so we don’t have a perfect comparison, but two other races have used the medium-hard arrangement: Malaysia, and Bahrain.

In Malaysia, Hamilton qualified 4th and finished 3rd, Rosberg qualified 6th and finished 4th.

In Bahrain, Hamilton qualified 9th and finished 5th, and Rosberg qualified 1st and finished 9th.

Here are the other two races:

In China, Hamilton qualified 1st and finished 3rd, and Rosberg qualified 4th and failed to finish due to reliability issues.

In Australia Hamilton qualified 3rd and finished 5th, and Rosberg qualified 6th but failed to finish due to reliability issues.

Hamilton has gained 1 place, gained 4, lost 2 and lost 2 again, meaning that from 4 starts and finishes he’s gained a net 1 place.

Rosberg has only finished twice (not his fault the other times), and in those he gained 2 places and lost 8, meaning a net loss of 6.

Overall, in six finishes, Mercedes has lost 5 places. Both times the team has had pole previously the pole-sitter went backwards in the race. Every time one of them has qualified 3rd or above they’ve gone backwards in the race [in fairness, you can’t exactly go forwards if you’re 1st].

However, in Barcelona all but once in the last 20 odd years has the winner come from the front row. So, we’re going to see something interesting. Either Mercedes will finally manage to sort out their tyre issues, or we’ll get a winner from further back.

Last year Schumacher still had gremlins and Rosberg lost a single place, but in 2011 they did a little better (Schumacher rose from 10th to 6th and Rosberg stayed in 7th). So, perhaps the Mercedes will have better pace than is widely expected. Hmm.

Andrew Benson (BBC F1 chap) had some handy tweets about their race pace:

“Re Merc race pace. P2. ALO med tyre race sim avg 1:29.906; ROS 1:31.85. Fastest lap during it: ALO 1:29.073; ROS 1:30.880. Fuel, yes, but...”

Despite being probably the best qualifiers (certainly around the top) Mercedes have not only had zero wins so far, but fewer podiums than Red Bull, Lotus and Ferrari.

Based on that, their tyre wear issues, the long run to the start (high potential for getting passed off the line), and his strong race pace I’m going to back Raikkonen for the win at 4.8, with a hedge at 2.2. He’s also improved at every race from grid to flag, except China where he started and finished 2nd. If the Mercedes eat their tyres he should have the race pace to beat Vettel, with luck.

Anyway, let’s hope the race is nice and green.

Morris Dancer

Spain: pre-qualifying

The race is expected to be dry, and the compounds are medium and hard this weekend.

Practice 1 was slightly spoiled because it was rather soggy at first, then dried later. In the latter stage the rapidly drying nature of the track meant that times (and gaps between them) were somewhat exaggerated, limiting its use as an indication of speed. However, Ferrari will still be happy to get a 1-2 (Alonso fastest), followed by Vergne, Grosjean, Sutil, Hamilton, Bottas, Raikkonen, Rosberg and Di Resta.

P2, thankfully was nice and dry. The top 10 were Vettel, Alonso, Webber, Raikkonen, Massa, Hamilton, Rosberg, Sutil, Vergne and Di Resta. At this stage it looks like a 3 horse race, with the Red Bulls and Ferraris vying for pole and Lotus a shade slower over a single lap but very competitive in race trim.

I saw only a tiny bit of P1 but almost all of P2, and decided to try a slightly new tactic by making a few notes. The commentators were James Allen and Alan McNish, who seemed to offer quite a lot of interesting opinions/insights.

On high fuel with the medium tyre Vettel’s times were about 1:29.5 to 1:30.3, whereas Grosjean managed a lap of 1:28.4 and several faster than Vettel’s best. Mercedes suffered badly, with (if I heard correctly) times of around 1:30.8 degrading to 1:33. Looks like the Silver Arrow will be going backwards again.

Interestingly, Vettel has never had pole in Spain. Doesn’t mean he won’t this time, but his P2 fastest time was a teensy bit lucky as Alonso was 0.017s behind but got held up very slightly and probably would’ve been fastest. Although the commentators didn’t refer to his high fuel times directly I noticed myself one lap of 1:29.118, which is rather nice.

Lotus may well be fastest on race pace but overtaking in Barcelona isn’t easy so they need to start high up the grid. 2 or 3 stops can work at the circuit, and that decision may affect qualifying.

McNish was also bullish about Force India’s prospects in the race, despite slightly lacklustre single lap speed.

So, qualifying speed would seem to be Red Bull/Ferrari equal first then Lotus, with race pace Lotus fastest, then Ferrari, then Red Bull.

Oh, and a tyre on Di Resta’s car was completely destroyed, similar to Hamilton/Massa in Bahrain. Nobody else was affected, but that must be a concern.

In P3 the top 10 were Massa, then Raikkonen (separated by a tiny margin), then Webber, Grosjean, Vettel, Alonso, Di Resta, Sutil, Hamilton and Vergne. Critically, Vergne’s 10th fastest time was on the hard compound tyre (he didn’t set a fast time on the medium).

I’ve backed Vergne to reach Q3 at 3.8 (hedged at 1.6). He was top 10 in every practice session, and I’d suggest the true odds are around 1.8. It’s not a dead cert, but I do think it’s eminently possible.

Toro Rosso are one team whose updates seem to be working nicely. Williams also have taken a step forward, but Sauber and McLaren appear to be treading water. The Force India is looking pretty competitive once again.

Right now this looks like a Lotus/Ferrari duel to me, with Red Bull possibly vying for pole but unless they can start ahead and retain that advantage I suspect the prancing horse and Lotuses will beat them this weekend. Mercedes are looking less speedy than I’d imagined, and I think their imploding tyres will lead them to go backwards in the race.

The harder tyre is apparently better for the race (so says Gary Anderson, who knows his beans) so this should mean we see everyone unafraid to run through the mediums in qualifying, huzzah. Williams appear to suffer more on the mediums, so may qualify poorly but still have the prospect of snaffling a point or two in the race.

Incidentally, Webber has had two poles in Spain (Barcelona) and Vettel none.

After some prevarication (I’m not fond of multiple qualifying tips) I decided to back Massa at 14.5 to get pole (hedged at 5). He was fastest (effectively joint fastest as the margin’s so small) in P3 during the qualifying simulation with Raikkonen, a tenth and a half ahead of the rest. In P1 he was second to Alonso. The Ferrari is clearly a contender for pole and Massa has (over the last 5-6 races or so) been beating Alonso as often as not.

Anyway, let’s hope both tips come off, and that qualifying is delightfully green.

Morris Dancer

Spain: early discussion

It’s only been three weeks since Bahrain but it feels like a lot longer.

Pirelli are making some extra tyres available in practice to encourage teams to actually go trundling around instead of sipping energy drinks in the garage.

Naturally, most teams will be bringing significant upgrades to the European part of the season. The races are both closer to one another and to the factories of the teams (most of which are based in a small part of England) so upgrades should be coming thick and fast during this portion of the season.

Will McLaren have improved? Will Webber’s car run out of petrol? Thoughts, tips, insights and the like are all welcome in the comments below.

And [this is the only bit of plugging I’ll do here, promise] my latest book, Journey to Altmortis, is out now. It’s up on Amazon and Smashwords right now. The latter site offers a variety of formats to download and if you use the code XK87G (expires the 14th of May) you get it for a third of the usual price.

Morris Dancer

2013 early season review

In line with tradition, I'm writing this to have a quick look back at the initial part of the season, which consisted of 4 fly-away races.

Unusually (in fact, I think it's the first time) I'm actually ahead at this point, although still quite unhappy with how things have gone. I'll run through the betting first and then consider where I think drivers and teams are competitively.

The first race was awkward because I dislike betting on the race before qualifying. However, a lot of rain meant I had to either sit Australia out or bet early. So, I bet early on Ferrari top scoring (5.5). Happily, they did just that, and it was a very good start to the season.

Malaysia and China saw a single race bet each, and neither came off. I backed Massa for a podium and Vettel for the win. Massa went backwards and was never in the running. In China there was a tricky judgement call to make and I got it entirely wrong, so the hedge didn't get matched there either.

Bahrain was the first race where qualifying was at a time that disposed me to bet on it, and although Alonso didn't get pole the bet was near enough for the hedge to be matched. I also backed him for the win, but any hope of that was ended by the two DRS failures and early pit stops. We'll never know if he'd've been in a position to contest the victory and that was clearly a stroke of bad luck, but good luck happens too so hopefully that'll balance out over the season.

In short, Australia was a good win, Malaysia and China single stake losses and Bahrain essentially flat (loss of 46 pence with £10 stakes and hedging). After such a good start I'm not particularly pleased, but overall the first four races are better than has typically been the case. For certain, one failed bet (Vettel) was due to misjudgement on my part, and another (Alonso to win Bahrain) was ruined by bad luck.

So, not delighted but things could be worse (and at this stage they usually are).

Onto the racing.

It's worth stating that with three weeks and the shift from fly-away to European races that the competitive order should change between now and then. McLaren especially will be looking to improve. However, it's still well worth considering how the cars and chaps driving them stack up now. The list below is in order of the Constructors' table.

Red Bull:

Whine like hell about the tyres but top both title races. Whenever the hard tyre has been used they've won the race. Car is fast in qualifying and the race, perhaps a bit harder on the tyres than some other top teams.

Vettel has been driving very well, Webber's suffered a combination of bad luck and lack of support from management as well as blatant and unpunished disobedience of direct orders from Vettel.

They'll be in the running for both titles.

Ferrari:

Better than in recent years in qualifying but perhaps not quite as good as Red Bull or Mercedes. Good pace and wear on all tyres, but the DRS problem ruined Bahrain and if it's repeated that'd be a serious hindrance. As good as any other team on race pace.

Alonso is driving well but has suffered some very bad luck with a DNF early on and then the DRS problem. 30 points already behind the lead, but there's still 15 races to go and he should be in the hunt for the title. Massa's also been driving pretty well.

Alonso will definitely feature in the title race, and the team should be there for the Constructors'.

Lotus:

Softest of all the teams on tyres, fast in the race but pretty poor when it comes to qualifying. If they can sort out qualifying they could be the best of any team.

Raikkonen is a points machine and (as well as tying Vettel for most podiums, 3/4, this season) has scored in 21 consecutive races. Grosjean has been lacklustre, until Bahrain where he did very well to join his team mate on the podium.

I expect Raikkonen to be challenging for the title. The team will only be able to do likewise if Grosjean maintains his Bahrain form.

Mercedes:

Very good in qualifying, reasonable race pace, but the car eats its tyres (still). I don't think they'll be in the running for either title.

Hamilton's driving very well, and in a better, more tyre-friendly, car I'd expect him to be able to tilt at the title. Rosberg is Webber's chief rival for Unluckiest Driver of the Year, but even starting on pole he drifted all the way back to ninth.

I'd be surprised if they can fight for either title, but podiums and perhaps the odd win should be achievable.

Force India:

Great start, and a real surprise, for me. Strong race pace, perhaps a shade slower in qualifying. However, they have suffered some serious pit stop woe (hopefully that's a one-off).

Sutil really hit the ground running this year, and Di Resta's also been driving solidly. They should aim to get the odd podium and try to finish ahead of everyone outside the top four.

Whilst not a title contender in either race, Force India has had the strongest start of the season of any midfield team, even outscoring McLaren.

McLaren:

Managed to have the strongest car last year, few regulation changes and become the sixth fastest this year. Poor in qualifying, slightly better in the race, which is unacceptably bad from one of the biggest teams in the sport.

Button had some bad luck when a pit stop only bolted on three tyres rather than the traditional four, but even so he wouldn't be miles higher in the table. Perez, like Grosjean, had a ropey start to the year but hard racing in Bahrain netted him some nice points and may bode well for later on.

Unless the big upgrades planned for Spain work well, immediately, they're out of both title races. If they work well then there's a chance that they could feature (worth recalling Ferrari's 2012 upgrades at this time worked very nicely and really helped Alonso out).

Toro Rosso:

A bit of an anonymous car. Not bad enough to be noteworthy, not good enough to be remarkable. Aside from a strong performance by Ricciardo in China, that is.

Ricciardo had a great qualifying and strong race in China to start and finish seventh, but Vergne's sole point came from a tenth-placed finish. However, they'll be glad to be ahead of the Williams team and Gutierrez.

Definition of a midfield team. In the running for occasional points, unlikely to leave in Q1.

Sauber:

Very disappointing after a cracking season last year, which saw them score four podiums.

Gutierrez struggles to escape Q1, and although I rate Hulkenberg the German's also failed to score many points. Qualifying is too weak and they need to improve.

With the possible exception of Williams, Sauber should be the most disappointed of the midfield teams, compared to last season. And, if he doesn’t improve, I'd fire Gutierrez.

Williams:

The most disappointing midfield team. They underperformed last year with a strong car, but this year the car's gone dramatically backwards and it may well be the worst team excepting Caterham and Marussia.

Bottas was tipped by many, including me, to be rookie of the year but he's finding it difficult to escape Q1. Maldonado's harder to assess. He hasn't had any accidents but it's hard to say whether it's down to him or the car that he hasn't scored a single point in four races.

If Williams can't improve the car significantly they may wish to jack in the 2013 development and focus heavily on 2014.

Marussia:

They seem to have taken a fair step forwards and now have KERS, but still seem a distance away from troubling the scorers which, in their fourth season, is not great.

Jules Bianchi is perhaps the best performing of the new drivers, regularly outclassing Chilton and both Caterhams by a large margin. He may well get a drive elsewhere, especially if Gutierrez and Bottas don't improve.

Caterham:

The worst team on the grid, although they did have a better race in Bahrain. Pic jumped ship from Marussia but that doesn't look so wise now and he, along with Van Der Garde, have seen the ghost of driver past (Kovalainen) return to provide some development assistance.

Their main hope is that next year there are significant regulation changes.

Incidentally, I've backed (with a small stake) Raikkonen for the title at 7.4. My thinking is that his car is kind to its tyres, he's very fast and very reliable and I expect him to be in the hunt throughout the season. Hopefully that'll mean his odds will shorten nicely to enable hedging.

The Spanish Grand Prix is next up (10-12 May). I'd expect hefty upgrades for just about everyone, but perhaps the most interesting team to watch out for is McLaren. The order may well be rejigged a bit, but I'd be surprised if there were enormous changes.

As always, comments, tips, questions and cogitations are all welcome in the comments section.

Morris Dancer

Bahrain: post-race analysis

A slightly frustrating race, from both a spectator and gambler perspective. Alonso's DRS problems robbed us of any chance of a fight for the win and Massa's double tyre issue prevented him from getting anywhere near the podium. However, congratulations to Mr. Putney, whose Vettel bet paid off handsomely.

The start saw Rosberg get away cleanly, Alonso pass Vettel and then lose second to the German swiftly. It was clear early on that Rosberg's primary direction of travel would be backwards, with both the others much faster. However, Alonso's DRS became jammed open and his hope of victory disappeared like a virgin in a brothel. He managed to reach the pits, they manually slammed it shut, but then it came open again and a second pit stop was necessary.

This screwed up his race. Not only was his first pit much earlier than he would have liked, the second cost him another 19 seconds or so and lack of DRS cost him pace and overtaking opportunities.

I'm not sure if Stefano Domenicali spent the weekend punching mirrors but Massa had problems too. His front wing was damaged slightly, he suffered massive rear tyre delamination[sp] (not just degradation, the whole thing was falling to pieces, akin to Hamilton's practice problem) and then suffered another significant rear tyre issue later.

Vettel sailed away into the sunset, but the competition was much closer behind him. The Lotus team had great strategy and it's nice to see Grosjean return to some form after a quiet start to the season. He took the last podium spot, behind his team mate, away from Di Resta, which must be galling for the Scot. However, fourth is still a strong finish.

Hamilton's race was a bit unusual. He seemed destined for a poor return as he was 8-10 throughout, but then his tyre management seemed to pay off and in the latter stages he ascended to fifth, after a titanic tussle with Webber. The Australian also lost out, possibly on the last lap, to Perez. After Martin Whitmarsh said the Mexican needed to 'get his elbows out' the young driver certainly seems to have done that, passing multiple drivers, driving hard and, arguably, dirty. Button and Alonso both complained about his behaviour on the radio, but that's impossible to assess just listening to it on the radio.

Alonso finished eighth, which isn't bad considering his problems but it seemed that a sixth place could've been possible before Perez passed him fairly late on.

Rosberg had a bloody awful race, going all the way back to ninth. Given his team mate started there but rose to fifth it must be pretty disheartening. Chewing up the tyres remains the problem of Mercedes. Button got the last point, but he looked like a higher points position was achievable earlier in the race.

Sutil was unlucky to finish thirteenth. He had a puncture very early on, and that basically ruined his race. Massa ended up fifteenth, but that wasn't his fault. Pic (in the Caterham) managed to beat Gutierrez (Spanish for "Fired after one season if he doesn't improve"), which is a nice little result for the team.

Had he not had terminal woe, I think Alonso would've contested the win with Vettel. However, I still think that Mr. Putney's bet on Vettel was better judged than mine on Alonso, because Alonso was 2.6 and Vettel 4.1 (well, that and Vettel actually won, but you see what I mean). I was quite surprised that whilst some (especially Mercedes) were chewing their tyres the Red Bull seemed to have no real issue.

Worth also remarking that the Lotus remained kind to its tyres, and a double podium finish is very tasty for them.

After four races, here are the standings:

Vettel 77

Raikkonen 67

Hamilton 50

Alonso 47

And Constructors':

Red Bull 109

Lotus 93

Ferrari 77

Ferrari had a shocker of a day, but it was all bad luck. Their car is fast and pretty good on its tyres, and both its drivers are doing well. There's also team harmony, unlike in Red Bull and perhaps McLaren. If Grosjean can maintain his form then Lotus could yet challenge for the Constructors' title. I still think Vettel, Alonso and Raikkonen will be the main contenders for the Drivers' title.

I'm a bit irked that a bet which I think was reasonable and could've come off didn't due to bad luck. However, luck's all part of gambling and over the course of a season these things tend to even themselves out.

With a standard £10 stake, this weekend was a loss of 46 pence, with hedging, and £20 without (first weekend where there's a divergence between hedging and not). After a tasty start in Australia things haven't been so good, but it was nice to get the first qualifying tip right and overall the first four races are green either way.

I'll be doing my usual mini-review of the first part of the season between now and Spain, which is in 3 weeks.

Morris Dancer