Ask Nigel Roebuck: June 9

Dear Danny,

Not quite sure what you mean by McLaren's 'missing the point of Grand Prix racing in such woeful style'. What the team has tried to do is steal a march on its rivals by coming up with a relatively radical car, a policy which has often worked in the past for other teams, let's face it: think of the Lotus 79, or the 'active' Williams FW14B, and so on.

However, it must be said it's not a risk-free policy, because if doesn't work, you look a touch foolish - think of Gordon Murray's 'laydown engine' Brabham-BMW BT55 of 1986.

What is surprising is that McLaren has now produced two dud cars on the trot. You say that last year the team 'played the percentages with the 17D', but remember this was only ever intended to be a stopgap car until the MP4-18 was race-ready - which it never was. Now we've got the MP4-19, and it's fair to say that its handling has never inspired confidence in its drivers. Not at all what one expects from Adrian Newey, the highest-paid designer (except, probably, Rory Byrne) in the business.

The other thing which has to be said, of course, is that it is now a very long time since Mercedes-Ilmor produced a competitive engine. The latest version is again down on power (as well as being unacceptably fragile), and when you're in that situation, you're really up against it, because you're obliged to run your car more 'trimmed out' than you would wish (in the search for a bit of straightline speed), which means that your downforce goes out the window.

Thus far, the signs are that the MP4-19B represents a good step forward, and Raikkonen was apparently agreeably surprised by it when he tried it for the first time. Still, though, the team will probably struggle on 'horsepower circuits'.

If I knew the answers to all your questions, Danny, I'd be imparting them to Ron Dennis and Martin Whitmarsh for immense financial reward! But if you're going to 'play the percentages', and build a relatively straightforward car, you've got to do it better than Ferrari - and, frankly, I don't think it can be done better. The only way you're going to beat a combination of Schumacher, Brawn, Byrne, Martinelli and Todt is by building a fundamentally quicker car - and, what's more, one which, like Michael's F2004, never lets him down. At the moment no one, weekend to weekend, is close.



Dear Francisca,

First of all, the Williams debacle. Montoya invariably owns up whenever he has made a mistake, and it looked to me as though he made one at the Nurburgring, so I was quite surprised that he brought Barrichello and Panis into the equation. Of course he was there, and I wasn't, but I must say it looked like a straightforward locking of brakes to me. Whatever else, it seemed to me that Ralf - for once! - was not to blame.

As for Barrichello and Sato, it seemed pretty clear-cut to me, I must say. Takuma had more horsepower than anyone else, and was trying to capitalise on it. Let's face it, it must have been pretty intoxicating for this relatively inexperienced driver to be fighting with a Ferrari.

I liked the fact that he had the spirit even to think of putting a move on Rubens, but, frankly, he was simply too far back ever to 'win' the corner, and he paid the price. Pity, because I thought he drove a fantastic race that day - even if bits of it were a little impetuous. Without him, the European Grand Prix would have been a complete yawn.



Dear James,

In any sort of normal world - which F1 is emphatically not! - 'potential conflict of interest' is of considerable importance, and rightly so. Mind you, when I think about some of the 'appointments' this Monty Python government has made over the years, maybe the rules have changed for ever.

It's true that Flavio Briatore manages several drivers, but there's nothing new in this: Eddie Jordan. for example, managed Jean Alesi for years. And Bernie Ecclestone, after all, somehow combined the roles of 'Boss of F1' and team owner in the Brabham days...