Well I am new to this board, some of the posters know me an will recognize the following (albeit a little edited versions).
Australia review:
Australia gave us a decent race, not especially good, but not especially bad either. Mostly it looked like most races the last 5 seasons. A start, a couple of good moves of line by some, the leader running his own for the full race, and some fine driving by a few down the field.
Giancarlo Fisichella has never been highly rated by me, but I really think that he by this race weekend silenced all nay-sayers, me included. The mark of a front running F1 driver is that once he is in a seat that can seriously battle for the win, he does, this weekend gave Fisichella the first chance of doing so, he took pole and led every single lap of the race.
Faultless and to some boring.
Not to me, I marvel at all good racing, and I have no problems in admitting that all these seasons, I was wrong about Fisichella.
The rain during first qualifying made for a jumpeld grid. I can not see this as anything bad, on the contrary it force the low qualifiers to actually race, and with both Rubens Barichello and Fernando Alonso powering to the podium from starting outside the top-10, they showed that it was possible.
In general it is dangerous to generalize, but I see a number of ?significants? from the race.
1) -
Renault is for real in 2005. They have the car, then engine and the driver to battle for the WDC and WCC title all season.
2) -
Ferrari is not as far back as some have suggested they would be, they obviously have the drivers, and getting a second spot with the F2004M updated 2004 car can only make the rest of the field worried.
3) -
McLaren is also for real, the events of the race made them look worse than they are, but also highlighted that in order to succeed in 2005; you need to keep the car on the track. Montoya allegedly ruined his own race by going of track, lapping a Jordan. Raikkonen made the race difficult for himself by letting the engine die on him, and then later bounced a little too hard on the curbs, breaking the bargeboard. Still managed 8th, and was fast.
4) -
Williams did poorly, relatively speaking. Webber was overtaken by Coulthard in the first 200 meters, and he was unable to wrest the spot back from him the rest of the way. This could be read as Webber not being quite what we thought him to be, or the Williams not being quite what it should be as a 2005 challenger. I think that we may be looking at a mix.
5) -
Red Bull had a dream debut as a team. David Coulthard was strong all weekend, in a sense his performance showed why McLaren employed him for 10 seasons. He is a very good driver who in the right car can battle it out with most others. The Red Bull package seem relatively well-balanced, easy to driver, with plenty grunt and a driver pairing (threeing with Liuzzi) that will bring out the best in each other. Coulthard is for the first time in his career the undisputed team leader, and that doubtless helped him yesterday. I think that Red Bull management is very happy that they ended signing him.
6) -
BAR is in trouble. Jenson Button managed some relatively fast lapping at one point, but overall they are in shambles, All the good they build under Richards have been wasted, this will be a LOOOOOONNNGGGG season for BAR, and Takuma Sato showed what he really is, a mediocre driver who was made to look much better than he really is by a very good package in 2004.
7)
Sauber is in trouble. Villeneuve is nowhere; he had a fluke 4th gridspot and immediately fell down thought the field, being a mobile chicane all the way down to an eventual 14th spot in the classification. Massa started 20th and still ended 5 spots in front of Villeneuve. They will be lucky to score any points this season.

-
Toyota is in trouble. The car has the same problems that it had in 2004, eating rear tires in about 14 laps. This is a big problem under rules, where the tires need to last 300 km. Trulli fell backwards from an initial 2nd, and Ralf battled problems all day. They will introduce a B-version latest by Imola.
9) -
Jordan actually did very well, obviously no points, but steady driving from both drivers who did not do anything wrong, and did not get too much in the way when being lapped.
10) -
Minardi???. Poul Stoddard has managed to kill my longstanding backing of the team. His behaviour in connection with the Australian Grand Prix is inexcusable, and regrettably I will not be able to look quite as fondly on them until Stoddard sells out.
Malaysia preview
Less than a week to go, so commenting and prediction hat on. Some sites are threatening / promising mixed weather conditions, rain, thunder humid and hot, sticky and wet.
Conventional wisdom (obviously not all that is cracked up to be), make Bridgestone shod cars favourites to gain if the conditions necessitate monsoon tires during the race. And I still consider Michael Schumacher the undisputed rainmeister in the current field. It would be nice for Michael Schumacher and his challenge for the WDC, to win in Malaysia, and despite my open mind, I will guess him as the winner in each an every race of the season.
Malaysia will give us the second race weekend for the majority of the cars. I have tried finding an official listing of which drivers must keep their engine, and which can decide to race with a new one; However so far no luck. A number of the teams make a direct listing difficult, since they may decide to race an old engine, in order not to lock them up for Bahrain. This seems to be the case for Michael Schumacher, and possibly the two BAR drivers as well.
On race form Renault should line up as the favourites for both pole and win, but since both Renault?s raced the full Australian race, they may show us the dreaded engine failures that have been predicted by the nay-Sayers to the new engine rules.
BAR showed the world, how the FIA have once more managed to write rules brimful with loopholes. Unless the rule is re-written, we can expect that the first 8 in a race will finish, and the rest will pile into the pits at the last lap to retire. I do not (anymore) subscribe to the idea of ?intent of rules?. The rules are there, whatever they allow, or do not specifically outlaw is an open invitation to the teams. Obviously this mean that zero is saved on engine cost, and arguably it actually increase the costs overall.
Why FIA in their wisdom could not just have phrased the rule more or less like
?Any car classified, must start the following race with the engine it finished the race with. In the event that the engine expire within the last 5% of the race distance, making this impossible. The car will be penalised 10 spots on the grid after qualifying 1 and 2?.
Nice and short, yes sometimes a car could retire within sights of the flag, and be heavily penalised, however the idea were for the engine manufactures to build engines that would last. So that is a bad break, and over the course of a season it evens out. Some drivers in my opinion are ?car breakers?, and I have zero problems in having them pay for that.
Even if Michael Schumacher starts with his Australia race engine I see him winning in Malaysia, but despite my misgivings in regard the strength of Renault I also see them as a force.
