F1: Malaysia 2010 Qualifying

Unlike our European and US readers, we were not watching qualifying at a time of day (or night) doomed to be sleepy. In fact, from our vantage point - like e.g. ESPN, monitoring the race from video and driver info provided by FOM, we were not actually at the track. Unlike the others, however, we are actually in Kuala Lumpur.

And where we were - the equivalent of less than five laps in in a straight line from Sepang - we didn't see a spot of rain during Qualifying. We didn't see any of the lightning. And that's interesting because, every day for the past two weeks there have been serious thunderstorms; on several occasions so bad that we have had to turn off all of our office equipment and unplug our comms to prevent them frying when the lines or buildings get hit - a surprising regular occurrence.

Up here, some 150 metres above ground - and on top of a hill - we are often in the low lying clouds and lightning literally explodes within a few metres of our windows.

During qualy? Nothing. Not even the winds that warn of an impending storm.

But like many race tracks, Sepang has a microclimate. And during qualifying it was a magnet for bizarre weather.

And that's what spoiled it.

Are we delighted that a Lotus got into Q2 and starts ahead of Button? Absolutely. Are we even more delighted that both Lotus secured places ahead of both Ferraris and Lewis Hamilton. Are we impressed by Webber's pole position - no, not impressed, open-mouthed in awe.

But the simple fact is that the most interesting things except for Webber's incredible pole are two things involving Renault. First, Kubica on the wrong side of the white line in the pit-lane, sitting alongside a Force India car to push him out of the way and get out of the pit lane first: it was an astonishing display of crass behaviour and borderline illegal.

Then there's a shot down the back of the Renault's bodywork. Isn't there an FIA ruling that says that aero devices must not flex? Renault, last year, introduced that kind of tail-fin that runs the length of the cowling. One supposes that in part, at least, it's designed to increase side-ways air pressure in corners and therefore reduce tail slip. That's an aero effect. Why then does the tail-fin on the Renault deflect several degrees when the car is running in a straight line? Surely it's spoiling the airflow over the rear wing and that, at least by our understanding of the rules, is illegal.

No one has asked stewards to look at it. Perhaps they should. Something is making the Renault outperform expectations.