Fernando Alonso’s debut Ferrari win in a soporific season opener brought both truths to bear and sent everyone scurrying to recalibrate their expectations. To put it another way, the beauty of this year’s regulations on paper was the addition number of possible variables, instead of races being determined almost solely on fuel strategy. This year, set-up compromises, tyre performance, reliability, driver and pit-crew skill would all come into play.

But what if everyone at the front chose the same compromises to play it safe, as they were wont to do in a season opener? What if everyone was so concerned about tyre degradation that it was almost like there was a tacit agreement for everyone to perform at nine-tenths? People forgot about that possibility, and how it could lead to processional tedium. No-one amongst the top four teams was really prepared to take a gamble and to deviate from the most conservative strategy available.

What if reliability is no longer a real factor as it was the last time there was no refuelling, in 1993? Sure, Sebastian Vettel lost this race because of an engine niggle. But can you imagine seeing a repeat of Damon Hill going out from the lead with a puncture on the penultimate lap of the 1993 German GP? Or Nigel Mansell’s engine cutting out on the last lap in Canada in 1991? We have seen F1 cars largely bulletproof for the last decade. Perhaps 170kgs of fuel and cars driven conservatively won’t make much difference.

Plus when you have a Grand Prix which is more like a novel with a slow-burn developing plot rather than a series of short stories, the flip-side of no refuelling is that the players start slowly. Cars were going at up to eight seconds a lap off qualifying speed in the early stages! Everyone had forgotten that eventuality, having been treated to cars in sprint mode for the last 16 years. Like it or not, we live in an instant entertainment generation, and people are used to “wham-bam-thank you-ma’am” motorsport.

So the way things turned out, the debut of this new era was visually disappointing. The location didn’t help either. Compared to the festival atmosphere of Melbourne, Bahrain is lifeless. The novelty of racing on a Tilke-drome in the desert on a blazing afternoon has long since dissipated; the visuals can’t hold a candle to the twilight marina images of Singapore or Abu Dhabi. The pervasive heat haze and glaring sun just made the slowness of this Grand Prix an even more soul-sapping affair.

And all this before you throw in a circuit extension that was so Mickey Mouse that it was stunning in its pointlessness. Plus the section exacerbated the conservative strategies and dragged out the lap times. It was so follow-the-leader that people could do nothing about a rival in front of them through that section. You can go extra-slowly through corners knowing that people can’t pass you. Michael Schumacher can tell you that after what he did to Mika Hakkinen at Sepang in 1999.

When Vettel’s spark plug fouled up, his lap times dropped at first, but then he was able to return to relatively competitive times by pushing harder in that middle sector. That shows you the degree of margin people were leaving. A twisty section is also one where cars following others face the most aero disturbance. Once the car in front started taking it easy through the new section to preserve tyres, people behind were forced to do the same. No one exerted any pressure, and everyone could survive on one tyre stop.

So the circuit certainly contributed to the lack of variables that made the new rules a damp squib. So too did underlying factors like the aero dependence of F1 cars and the amount of wake generated by double-decker diffusers. These issues, as well as too-short braking distances, do need addressing, but not mid-season. Instead, a lot of attention in the week since the race has focussed, and rightly so, on the issue of tyres, and how the current situation negates the ability for all the possible variables to eventuate.

Despite pre-season fears, the fact is that all the Bridgestone compounds are really quite durable if managed even half-sensibly. Added to the two-compounds per race rule, and not surprisingly most people will be looking at a one-stop race. These two aspects put together mean that the teams are being told, “We want you to compromise and take gambles and try varied strategies, but we’re telling you the strategic rule you have to play by.” It’s somewhat nonsensical.

Furthermore, unlike the refuelling era when stops were in a similar window but could be up to five or even ten laps apart, tyre stops will now happen within a lap or two of each other. That is because if it is an advantage to pit earlier, others will react and follow suit immediately. It’s not like under the old rules, when the reward was for holding on. If there is no improvement in the spectacle over the next few races, clearly the tyre rules, as part of the sporting regulations, will be the easiest area to target for change.

Numerous ideas have been bandied about by all and sundry, including maintaining the two-compound rule but mandating at least two stops. But your humble writer would suggest, like others on the F1 Rejects forum, that the number of pit stops should not be legislated. The two problems with the current tyre situation need to be addressed. Firstly, that means getting Bridgestone to bring tyres that that don’t have guaranteed performance. This is something McLaren’s Martin Whitmarsh has mentioned.

If it is too difficult to convince Bridgestone to develop new compounds now with wider performance gaps, the simpler solution, it would seem, is to simply bring the same two compounds to every race. Out of the four compounds at the moment, those two should have at least one step between them, i.e. the hard and the soft, or the medium and the super-soft, or even the hard and the super-soft. Stopping production of two types of tyre could well be cost-effective for Bridgestone as well.

The potential with this idea is that at some tracks, where tyre wear is low and circuit grip high, both tyres will work and you could end up with a processional one-stop race. So be it. But at other tracks, perhaps one tyre will clearly work better than the other. At some, perhaps neither will work at all. And if the tyres don’t work at one race, will Bridgestone really lose face? Has anyone genuinely judged Bridgestone road tyres based on racing results? Bridgestone are pulling out at the end of 2010 anyway.

Secondly, rather than mandating pit stops, the two-compound rule could be scrapped, but the rule that the top ten have to start on their qualifying tyres maintained. Now this would give teams and drivers a real choice on strategy. Use the soft tyre in qualifying, get a grid position advantage, but you will probably need to stop during the race, whereas someone might try to do the whole race on one set of tyres. It’s better than the situation now, which is the choice you have when you don’t really have a choice.

Just think of some of the races in the past that were decided by exactly this “to stop or not to stop” conundrum. Think of Gerhard Berger holding out the field in his Benetton in Mexico in 1986 by being the only frontrunner who did not stop for tyres. Or Mansell on fresh rubber chasing down Nelson Piquet at Silverstone in 1987. Or Schumi’s second ever Grand Prix victory in Portugal in 1993, when he made one fewer tyre stop than Alain Prost and held off the charging Williams at the finish.

Perhaps practice sessions should be shortened accordingly, for example by chopping each current free practice into two, so there are six practice periods. No-one would be able to do an ultra-long run in free practice to gauge whether either tyre could last a full race distance. And finally, although this is utterly politically incorrect, if softer tyres and pit stops versus no stops at all are to be truly comparable options, then pit stops must be less costly in terms of time. And that means reconsidering the pit lane speed limit.

Stops in Bahrain were taking around 30 seconds. Regardless of how great an advantage softer tyres are, that is a lot of ground to make up, for one stop. One must recall that, whilst undoubtedly a safety device, pit lane speed limits were only introduced in 1994 as a reaction to the events of Imola 1994, which included an incident where a wheel flew off Michele Alboreto’s accelerating Minardi. Prior to that, there had been very few pit lane incidents, despite narrower and more haphazard pit lanes.

Perhaps the pit speed limit would only need to be increased, if not scrapped entirely. Or other operational rules could be implemented to maximise safety. To adopt something from A1GP, perhaps only one crew member is allowed in pit lane when a car comes in, to guide the driver to his mark. Only when the car is stationary can other crew members emerge. They must all return back behind a line in the pit garage before the car can depart, guided either by a lollipop man or a set of lights Mercedes-style.

This would mean a longer stationary time, but the total time for a pit stop would surely be less. At any rate, what the above suggestions demonstrate is that, perhaps, some creativity is needed by regulators and competitors, based on things that can be implemented at short notice, if the show does not improve over the next few Grands Prix. And “if” is the operative word; as Bernie Ecclestone has pointed out, we don’t need knee-jerk reactions just yet. We’re just one race down with another 18 to go.

Things may come good quickly in the next few races. But what Bahrain showed was that not enough thought had been given to both the pros and the cons of how good ideas would work out in practice, and to alternatives if the rules do not work. It was also a rude shock for everyone who had been in a dreamland about how perfect a season 2010 would be, from Bernie to respected Autosport journos to amateur hacks. As a result, we have decided to award 'Reject of the Race' to the over-hyping of the 2010 season.

As we move into a brief discussion of the teams - and there really is not much to say given such a procession at Sakhir - a few final thoughts on some of the flip-sides to what looks like such an awesome season on paper that few had discussed before Bahrain. Firstly, yes there may be four teams fighting it out for championship glory this year. But with each of Ferrari, Red Bull, McLaren and Mercedes looking ominously reliable, the other teams really will just be scrapping for the points for 9th and 10th.

Slim pickings and not much variety in the sense of a competitive field across the board, then. Secondly, yes it was true that no-one really knew how the teams stood after pre-season testing, but that did not necessarily mean that the top four teams are millisecond-close. In fact, there may be something of a hierarchy developing there already. And finally, all the buildup surrounding Schumacher’s return, even from normally subdued scribes, have been given a huge reality check. More on this shortly.

Ferrari proved that their pre-season testing form was genuinely representative. Alonso’s win was clinical, showing Felipe Massa who’s boss at the first corner, and catching Vettel mid-race. The perfect start for the Spaniard, then. But Massa’s pace in qualifying, especially Q3, was tremendous, and would have put Fernando on notice. The Brazilian was outfoxed at the start, but he kept Alonso honest all race. The intra-team battle at Ferrari is already brewing nicely. Watch this space.

Red Bull’s pace is very real, and very quick. The RB6 is also the most uncertain reliability-wise out of the leading quartet. In qualifying and for most of the race Vettel was sublime. If the car’s relative speed keeps up, he can overcome the psychological hurdle of having to take on four World Champions. The same cannot be said of Mark Webber, whose weekend was worrying. It showed all the hallmarks of why people do not rate him as a top-flight driver.

He can be gritty and solid and have excellent pace on his day, but you just can’t rely on him to get the job done mistake-free when the pressure’s on, and it’s do or die. When Vettel plants his Red Bull on pole, Mark screws up sector two and winds up 6th. It’s too familiar a story. Then he misses his grid marker, amazingly does not get punished for it, drops a place at the start and loses another place in the pits. Webber’s “close but not quite” vibe feeds into the performance of his crew as well.

McLaren was surprisingly stodgy, but no surprise then that it’s at times like this when Lewis Hamilton shines. He maximises and gets results, like he did last year. The start of Jenson Button’s title defence only added fuel to the fire for those who believe his title was more due to the Brawn last year. He simply never came to grips with the car all weekend, and was well off the pace consistently. He must reply strongly soon or else the battle for internal supremacy at McLaren will be all but over.

The silver and red cars were otherwise in the headlines throughout the weekend, first for their rear wing, then for their diffuser, and then for their F-vent on the nosecone with a system whereby the driver’s leg can block airflow to the rear wing, therefore stalling the rear wing. The FIA declared it legal, but McLaren didn’t dominate the weekend, did they? Compared to the Ferrari and the sophisticated but trick-free Red Bull, maybe it is proof that all the tweaks in the world are no substitute for getting the basic concept right.

Mercedes arrived with their definitive diffuser but were still fourth out of four. And Nico Rosberg dominated Schumi. Surprising? Not entirely. Nico has always done well in Bahrain, and as we said in our season preview, Michael is at his most vulnerable right now. He is 41, in a new team, coming off a three-year lay-off, with limited testing to speak of. He hasn’t got several of the factors that aided his greatness - a team moulded around him, and endless test miles to finetune a car to his liking.

It would not be a shock if Nico continues to have the edge in the short term. Michael’s inherent greatness is that, by sheer force of personality and skill, he will end up gathering the team around him, he will end up adapting to the W01. He can only be discounted at others’ peril. The comeback in Bahrain - rather anticlimactic again only because of the weight of expectations - was simply a reminder that whilst Schumi may be an incredible human racing driver, he is not superhuman.

The leader of the chasing midfield pack was, somewhat unexpectedly, Force India and Adrian Sutil, but his chances of being the spoiler in the pack were over thanks to Webber’s oil smoke and an inadvertent tap from his team-mate. It’s difficult to see how, by running a longer first stint on harder tyres, he could have eventually broken into the top eight. It was left to Vitantonio Liuzzi to take the points for 9th in a steady effort, but you sense that he could not maximise the strategy as well as Sutil could have done.

If he wasn’t before, Rubens Barrichello must surely realise he’s in for a long season as Williams - as we predicted. The Cosworth engine is decent - it out-dragged Sebastien Buemi with a Ferrari engine at one stage - but the overall package is on the fringes of the top ten only. Meanwhile, Nico Hulkenberg did not shine, except for his tank-slapping spin early in the race, which was the only error of note amongst the established teams. It’s still too early to judge the German’s performance level just yet.

Renault’s pace was not as bad as first thought - and neither is Vitaly Petrov’s. The Russian did not do well in Q2 but his early race pace was respectable enough. Robert Kubica was also a loser in Webber’s first corner smokescreen, but at least he will now know that he has a decent weapon beneath him. He and Sutil not only made Q3, they clearly looked the most dynamic out of the midfield runners and the most likely to break the stranglehold of the top four teams.

Just like in testing, Toro Rosso showed flashes of pace, but when push comes to shove neither Buemi or Jaime Alguersuari delivered, and the Spaniard had the dubious distinction of being the only driver from one of the existing teams to be eliminated in Q1. They look to be behind Force India, Renault and Williams right now. Fortunate to escape from Q1, but nowhere near getting out of Q2, was Sauber which not only disappointed the pundits, but actually had many of them genuinely annoyed.

Pedro de la Rosa and Kamui Kobayashi showed none of the pace they had demonstrated in pre-season testing, which raises suspicions of sponsorship-hunting low-weight runs. Also amongst the established teams, they were the only one which failed to make the finish with either car. Kobayashi had none of the spark that characterised his two previous starts at the end of last season, although de la Rosa proved that he can still mix it in the midfield. The question is whether he can find any higher level.

As expected, Lotus was the most reliable of the new teams, with both cars classified although Jarno Trulli limped to the line, and also as predicted the pace of the new teams was some way off the best, although closer to the bottom of the midfield. What was not expected was that Trulli and Heikki Kovalainen would be beaten in Q1 by Timo Glock’s Virgin. Nevertheless, the underlying reliability of the T127 means that there is a solid platform from which to work on pace.

The same can’t be said for Virgin. What good is it to develop the car if it won’t last a third of the race? Both Glock and Lucas di Grassi continue to be constantly hampered by mechanical issues. It’s not as though Lotus’s reliability is due to conservative design whereas the VR01 is radical; it may be CFD-designed but it’s far from groundbreaking. So the reliability issues are in construction and operation, and again it’s hard to see why Lotus should have such an edge. This is something Virgin needs to rapidly address.

As for Hispania or HRT, considering that they were having their shakedown on a race weekend, they did commendably enough and you sense there’s room for improvement. Bruno Senna managed to chain a meaningful number of laps together and his pace steadily improved, while Karun Chandhok’s didn’t run at all until qualifying. To get within 2s of Senna in the circumstances was actually very well done. Being caught out by a bump and crashing on lap two, when taking it easy was the key, was less impressive.