by Dieter Rencken, South Africa
Atlas F1 Magazine Writer
This week's rumours and speculations
Fresh from the Formula One paddock
Since Michelin's return to Formula One in 2000 the weather during Grand Prix weekends has been described not as 'cold' or 'overcast' or 'wet' or 'boiling', but as 'Bridgestone' or 'Michelin' weather. Of course, the one or other tyre company has unexpectedly won in conditions better suited to the other (when other factors may well have come into play) but, generally, Bridgestone has outperformed the French product when the going has been cool(er) or wet, whilst Michelin has shone in hotter, drier climes.
That being so, despite the usual insistence of both tyre companies that their compounds are best under any conditions, and with indications being that these trends will continue into 2004, surely the major changes wrought to the 2004 calendar - both in terms of quantity of Grands Prix and their placement relative to last year - will bring with them changes to F1's weather patterns? In short, does Brazil's shifting from the end of March to late October bring with it 'Michelin' or 'Bridgestone' weather? Could the re-inclusion of Spa favour Bridgestone? What are the expected effects of a June race in the United States, or a race in Bahrain in April?
Formula One has, of late, visited southern or equatorial regions in March/April, and then stayed in the North thereafter. Not anymore. True, Australia/Malaysia are in their standard slots, but Brazil has moved from third out of 16 to last of 18 Grands Prix, whilst mid-May's Austria has gone, effectively replaced by a Bahrain race in early April. Indianapolis has been pulled forward from September to late-June, whilst the Nurburgring has also been advanced, by a full month from late June to a week after Monaco. Then China, of which F1 has no climatic experience, has joined the fray…
In fact, there are eight instances of either complete change, or, at the very least, a variance of two weeks - which, in certain regions (Nurburg, for example), is tantamount to a seismic shift. Changes are summarised in the table below:
Note: changes only indicated where 2004 dates over last year's equivalents vary by at least two weeks; or where country/region changes.
Quite clearly then, weather effects are to be expected, but can these be quantified? Obviously, weather can never be forecast with total confidence (ask Williams about Monaco 1997), but trends can be analysed and deductions drawn. By comparing temperatures and rainfalls per season it is possible to predict a trend. Does it favour the Japanese or French company?
So, taking 2004's 18 circuits, what are the temperature and rainfall expectations in comparison with the season past?
Basis:
1. Daily temperature highs and monthly average rainfalls (as quoted by www.weather.com or, if not available from that source, from other internet-based sources) based upon dates listed above have been utilised. Where an event falls within the middle (plus or minus one weekend) of a month rainfall figures have been applied 'as is'; where the event falls in the first/last weekend, a plus or minus 25% factor drawn from the previous/next month has been applied.
2. Where no direct records for a particular circuit exist, comparisons are based upon those for the closest major centre. (In brackets)
3. Average monthly temperature lows have been excluded as events are invariably scheduled for the hottest (or close to) periods, ie. F1 stages no 2004 events at 04.30am or midnight.
4. * denotes no 2003 comparisons available
5. ** denotes no 2004 comparison included
After all that research, can any realistic deductions be drawn? Patently not if temperature and rainfall 'changes' are indiscriminately averaged across the board. But, should 2003 actual averages be compared to expected 2004 equivalents, then a trend will emerge from which to draw certain deductions.
Nothing conclusive there, is there?
How about comparing newcomers to existing events? Bahrain is slightly (but so close as to make no difference) above the temperature average, but well below the rainfall mean (it is reckoned to have zero moisture) - a 'Michelin' race, then? Belgium's temperature is well above 2003's average, but so, crucially, is its rainfall - it could fall either way, and probably will. That leaves Shanghai, which is above average in both measurements - meaning it could go the way of Michelin's runners on temperature or Bridgestone on rainfall. Another 'either way'…
Which brings us to Interlagos in late October instead of early-April - hardly any variance in temperature and a slight increase in precipitation. This indicates that Bridgestone should have the upper hand at the season finale in the event of expected deluges.
Two 'either ways' and, based on weather association, one to each of the tyre companies. Could the changes to the 2004 calendar be fairer? Nope - and Thank God for that.
© 2007 autosport.com
. This service is provided under the Atlas F1 terms and conditions.
Please Contact Us for permission to republish this or any other material from Atlas F1. |
|