Horner hints at Webber’s Red Bull future

F1 Fanatic round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Christian Horner says he sees no reason for Mark Webber to leave Red Bull.


Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:

No Reason For Webber To Leave – Horner (Speed)

“Why would he want to leave? He’s comfortable in the team. The team know Mark very well, Mark knows the team very well. We’re only at race six.”

Michael Schumacher should stay at Mercedes – Ross Brawn (BBC)

“We always said Michael himself will know when it’s time to retire and after a performance like that why should he?”

Hamilton admits McLaren are ‘falling behind’ (The Telegraph)

“The team definitely have some work to do. I’ve fallen behind. Race by race we are getting further and further behind the others.”

F1 in new push to bring costs down (Autosport)

Norbert Haug: “It is not a secret that with the new [commercial] arrangements that the top teams are better off, and what we want to have in F1 are competitive midfield teams that can spring surprises.”

F1 unpredictability may be a turn-off for fans, says Jenson Button (Metro)

“So anyone can win a Grand Prix, everyone can lose a Grand Prix like that?" I think they’re finding it a little bit strange now.”

Mercedes F1 W03 – revised sidepods (F1)

“Mercedes were running a heavily revised, almost B-spec car in Monaco.”

A working Monday in Maranello (Ferrari)

“Another item on the job list is undoubtedly the behaviour of the tyres. Going into the race in the Principality, not many believed that doing a one stop race would be possible and the fact that it had not been possible to test the tyres over a long run in free practice, especially the super-soft which was making its first appearance of 2012, made the situation even more uncertain.”

Domenicali: Monaco a great boost for Massa (Adam Cooper)

“I’m sure that this will be a turning of his season, because he needs that. It was a great boost for him. It’s something that we need for the constructors’ championship and for the team. So I’m expecting a good Felipe up to the end.”

How Kovalainen & Caterham beat a McLaren: F1 debrief – Monaco (Caterham via YouTube)

There is nothing unlucky about 13th for Caterham (The Sun)

“Within seconds his car was sporting four new supersoft tyres and a brand new nosecone. As Heikki pulled away to rejoin the race ahead of Timo, Jody roared his appreciation of the job the pitcrew had done, telling the lads it was ‘Pure mint!’ ?������ and a couple of other more choice words!”

Monaco Conclusions

“Barring accident or an unseasonal shower, this is how Monaco always has been – or at least it has felt that way for the past twenty years – and how it will always be. It’s both the best setting in F1 and the worst venue on the calendar (we can forgive Valencia on account of its youth).”

Nico Rosberg: Message after P2 at Monaco GP 2012 (Nico Rosberg via YouTube)

Kevin Garside: Schumacher still driven by primal need (The Independent)

“A lusty proportion of Formula One fans were never comfortable with the marriage of freakish speed and shifting morals. It did not do much either for Formula One writers of a certain vintage, or Schumacher-wins-again correspondents as they became known, compelled to sell to the boss on a fortnightly basis news of another Teutonic sweep to the chequered flag.”

Time with M. Todt (Peter Windsor)

“‘Do you envisage just one championship in every tier?’ ‘Yes. Ideally – and again on paper – it’s very easy: karting, Formula 4, Formula 3, Formula 2, Formula 1. The problem is to assess the situation and to see how you can achieve that – and with whom you can achieve it.'”

The IT crowd: CFD at Marussia F1 (The Engineer)

“With a performance rating of 72 teraflops – or 72 trillion calculations per second – Marussia’s supercomputer is one of the most powerful in the UK. F1 rules only allow an average performance of 40 teraflops but having this high peak capability leaves room for intense use when needed and space to run experiments on last year’s design without breaking the rules.”

‘There are twisty roads in Monaco… just ask Princess Grace’: Sky Formula 1 presenter sparks fury with bad taste ‘joke’ (Daily Mail)

“A Sky spokesman told MailOnline: ‘We are very sorry for the offence caused by SimonLazenby’s remark. His reference to Grace Kelly was inappropriate and, quite rightly, he apologised for the comment live on air.”

Comment of the day

Andae23 on the best drivers in Monaco:

Very difficult choice: I think the entire top six drove a superb race without a single mistake, this may have been the best ‘race’ I have seen in a long time. Schumacher did superb on Saturday and did well on Sunday before resigning.

Vergne actually drove his best race so far this year before the team made a mistake which cost him points. Solid race from the Force India guys, and congratulations to Karthikeyan for finishing.

I think I’m going to go with Webber: he hasn’t put a foot wrong this weekend and thoroughly deserved this win. Is Webber a title candidate? Well, he has shown some remarkable consistency in the first six races, so I would say so!

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Chris and Hughes!

No F1 Fanatic birthdays today.

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Denny Hulme won Oulton Park’s last non-championship F1 race today in 1972, driving a McLaren M19A.

Image © Red Bull/Getty images

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

102 comments on “Horner hints at Webber’s Red Bull future”

  1. “So anyone can win a Grand Prix, everyone can lose a Grand Prix like that?” I think they’re finding it a little bit strange now.”

    Let’s wait to see if the ratings fall off before passing judgement for us fans

    1. I’m amazed that Button is so out-of-touch, except I think it really should be translated as “I’m losing Grand Prix, how can anybody like that?”

      Though if HRT wins a race, I’m quitting the sport. That’d be just TOO out-there.

  2. On Button’s comments, F1 fans are always whining about something. Last year we were whining because Vettel was winning everything and it was too predictable, now other people are winning and suddenly that’s not what they wanted at all. Same thing with overtaking. The grass will always be greener on the other side for some people.

    1. I’d prefer it in the middle – something like we had in 07/08 with title battles between 2 or 3 people who are winning just about every race (with only 1 or 2 outsider wins)

      1. Actually 07/08/10 were the best years in F1. We had either 2 or 3 very good teams who took points off each other, each having a stronger car on a different kind of circuit. It’s not like now, where its almost a lottery. Seven teams can win a race at any time. And they can fall off the cliff the next race. A bit too extreme now, it is.

        1. Sorry, I have to jump in here.

          There’s no way 07/08 were the ‘best years in F1’. Please go back and watch some races from the season. The races were getting very, very boring.

          1. I’ve got some of the 2008 races saved on my laptop and watch them often. I’ve been watching F1 since 1998 and 2008 was the best season I’ve seen. Every race that season had some sort of interesting aspect to it and the championship showdown was simply the best race I have ever seen in any category, let alone F1. Pure drama. And what about the Kimi/Lewis showdown at Spa – breaking Kimi’s otherwise perfect run of Belgian GP victories from 2004 to 2009. Those dying laps were again, pure drama. The only races from that season that I think you could make a case for being boring were China and Valencia – but what season doesn’t have the occasional dud race?

          2. @ewcdanselby I know I might be in the minority, but I care very little for wheel to wheel action. Strategy and excellence – either excellence – are what I watch F1 for.

          3. Aditya Banerjee (@)
            29th May 2012, 17:17

            Well if you think races are boring just because there are no mindless drs overtakes, or that their is no tyre lottery, you will probably find 07/08 boring. I would personally though not club 07 and 08 together, because 08 was a much closer championship than 07, but 07 had more overtakes.

    2. The grass will always be greener on the other side for some people.

      Not if they keep replacing it with tarmac run-offs :P

    3. There comes the man who won a championship “like that”…

      1. Aditya Banerjee (@)
        29th May 2012, 17:19


    4. How do you spot the F1 fan in a MacDonalds?

      They’re the ones having the Never Happy Meal.

      Boom boom, plus one

      1. Dry humour, but you nailed the true point in the head.

    5. @george Pretty much! Part of the charm, I guess…

  3. Teraflops?! Seriously?

    More importantly, has anyone owned up to throwing pit-board numbers at Lewis yet? This is a Very Serious Matter.

    I’m surprised the electronic boards like at Le Mans haven’t turned up in F1 yet. Maybe Chelsea will lend Sauber one.

    1. “Flop” is a concatenation of “floating point operation”, which is jargon for the processors having done something. (“Tera” is of course the SI prefix for 10^12, one million million).

      Sounds silly, but makes a certain amount of sense.

    2. In fact, for Marussia’s first two seasons, the team did no wind-tunnel testing at all, providing the perfect base to build possibly the biggest CFD capability in the sport.

      no mention of how it was a complete disaster

      1. @f1yankee BMW’s supercomputer worked just fine, though. At least until 2008. Marussia are using McLaren’s windtunnel, right? if they combine both, then it’s a proper step foward… on paper.

      2. Hard to tell really, @f1yankee, although I do think it was folly to expect to be able to do it completely without any windtunnel runs to check data correlation, would it have made them faster?
        Last year their biggest issue was with reliabilty, that is not going to improve much from having a windtunnel. This year its not just that they are faster (but also more experienced), but they are doing a far better job at getting to the finish.

      3. “complete disaster” is unfar – they qualified for every race (i think) and they weren’t six laps down like teams were 10-15 years ago.

      4. @f1yankee Well it certainly did them no favours regarding the fuel tank!

        1. How would a wind tunnel test have helped make the fuel tank bigger?

  4. disgruntled
    29th May 2012, 0:23

    not bad for a number 2 driver

  5. I wonder if Buttons and Hamiltons absence at Mugello is one of the reasons behind McLarens lack of pace.

  6. ‘Do you envisage just one championship in every tier?’ ‘Yes. Ideally’

    I think that’s a horrible idea myself. That there are different routes to F1 makes the lower series and ultimately the eventual F1 drivers much more interesting- they have a range of backgrounds. Also, that means that after karting there’d only be about 80 drivers in these supposed ‘premier’ formulas, making for a limited (but admittedly strong) talent pool, where drivers who struggle to make it due to funding, or a particularly strong year of drivers, maybe fall completely off the ladder. And what becomes of national series? All in all it’s an awful, poorly thought out attempt to replicate a football league system to a sport where it is in no way appropriate.

    1. In fairness I think Todt meant one “official” feeding ladder. WSR for example is still a feeder for F1, technically same level as GP2, but few people know about WSR – GP2 has a lot more recognition.

      1. Yeah, the current system is kind of convoluted. There is no clear pathway from karting to Formula 1 the way there once was. Joining the wrong series could hurt an otherwise-talented driver’s career.

      2. @raymondu, I think the biggest problem with GP2 is the cost. If we look at the drivers, there really is too much money over talent now, as its expensive, even though its a one make series. It has the competitive advantage of the Bernie/FOM tie in with F1 enabling it to race for a premium public, but its a bit of a scam that the series sells all parts and makes quite a big margin on them.
        I guess that is one of the reasons for Red Bull to rather support WSR for their driver development, Mateschitz has not become rich by buying expensive!

        I think its really good to streamline the whole “route to F1” a bit, when now we have GP2, WSR, below that GP3, WSR (how many of that are there), then we have F2 somewhere out there, F3 and don’t forget about the Indy lights and Mazda series in the US. Quite a big spread.

        1. I think its really good to streamline the whole “route to F1″ a bit, when now we have GP2, WSR, below that GP3, WSR (how many of that are there), then we have F2 somewhere out there, F3 and don’t forget about the Indy lights and Mazda series in the US.

          I think the easiest way to do that would be to restructure everything so that series flow into one another. GP3 should lead to GP2. Formula 3 should lead to Formula 2. World Series 2.0 should lead into World Series 3.5 (though I’d change the names around). Each of these then leads into Formula 1. It would make the path to Formula 1 much clearer and easier, though the catch is that the second-tier series and the third-tier series all need to be equal to one another and cheap to run.

          1. That I wouldn’t mind so much- several routes all leading to the same thing. You still have the current variety, but with less of the confusion. Also if the tiers are slightly more defined then it wouldn’t matter much if a driver moved from GP3 to F2, or WS 2.0 to GP2, so drivers can still carve out their own path. The only trouble with that is being in the same tier would possibly put too many series directly in competition with one another, which could do more harm than good.

          2. I think the easiest way to do that would be to restructure everything so that series flow into one another.

            That has an attractive simplicity – and GP3 to GP2 is fine – but I don’t think it works in practice.

            The quality of drivers in British, European and Japanese F3 is generally much higher than in F2, despite F2 being a superficially more senior series. There’s a place for an-F2 style championship (low budget, reasonably quick cars, etc), but it’s not in the tier immediately below F1. Formula Renault 2.0 is intended as a first slicks and wings series and the jump to the much bigger, more powerful WSR is probably too big for many to make which is why so many come via F3 or GP3.

            There is a good case for rationalising the junior championships into a less dispersed staircase to F1, but it needs to combine a degree of affordability and technical variety (there are currently too many single make championships – Formula Ford, Formula Renault and Formula 3000 all used to be multi-chassis series) to provide a decent variety of experience for potential F1 drivers. Sadly, without a decent selection of high quality customer racing car manufacturers (and Lola having just gone into administration), that’s going to get increasingly difficult.

  7. JPQuesado (@joao-pedro-cq)
    29th May 2012, 1:02

    Sky seems to be dragging itself into the mud. I’m glad that’s happening. BBC is on another league, a top one, regarding F1 coverage. It should never again lose the rights of broadcasting F1 in the UK. Just put a fan (or someone that doesn’t want money) in the place of Bernie so that TV channels don’t have to blow up their bank accounts in order to cover F1.

    1. JPQuesado (@joao-pedro-cq)
      29th May 2012, 1:04

      Reading my comment now, I feel I’ve just wrote a part of Utopia. Sorry for that, Thomas!

    2. I must admit I found myself watching the BBC live coverage when it’s available, the quality of programming it just vastly better, even when you consider Eddie Jordan.
      Although strangely I prefer the Sky’s commentating more and always watch the actual race on Sky. Is it just me who thinks a Croft/Coulthard commentating team would better than the current ones?

      1. I’ve been watching the races on Sky and build-up on BBC all year. Ben Edwards, while not quite as bad as Legard, can’t hold a candle to Croft+Brundle. However during the week I always watch the Sky pre and post show while pottering about and in my opinion Sky are really making gains on the BBC. I’d go so far to say that Barcelona post-show was better on Sky (I haven’t seen Sky’s Monaco yet).

        Sadly BBC have really suffered the loss of Brundle and – most importantly – Ted Kravitz. The man is a legend.

        That said, I was very impressed by Gary Anderson’s review of the contained hole / impervious surface mess. His experience as a car designer shone through Ted’s enthusiasm and passion.

        1. I agree 100%

      2. I’m getting frustrated with listening to Coulthard now. He keeps repeating himself over and over. I know what he is going to say before he says it because i’ve heard it from him 20 times already. I understand that commentators must educate viewers that might not be watching F1 regularly. But think its getting too much. Especially from Coulthard.

        Brundle is much better as the second commentator, and WAY better at the grid walk.

      3. @deanmachine

        I couldn’t agree more. Crofty and Coulthard would be a fantastic commentary team, with Davidson and Crofty for the practices.

        For the pre-show, Sky need to drop Lazenby for Georgie Thompson, because she is FAR superior to him. However, even then, I think I’d probably still watch the BBC pre-show. They enjoy themselves and when watching, you feel like you’re enjoying yourself with them – or at least that’s how I feel. Sometimes it can get a bit silly, but I would much rather watch Coulthard and Jenson having a bit of banter, than the desperate attempts at professionalism from Sky.

    3. Got to say I enjoy Sky’s coverage. As I’m watching them… ejem… ilegally via internet, I find myself stuck with them as the stream doesn’t freeze at all and they start very early and continue for an hour after the GP. And I think Brundle makes up for it, along with Ted Kravitz. It’s always interesting to hear what they say…

      I like Croft too. Though sometimes the whole coverage seems a bit “too much” for what’s shown. For example, Davidson and Thompson standing in a white room with a telly seems a bit of a waste of time. Davidson makes some interesting points but it tends to be a bit boring the way they do it…

      I got to find a good BBC stream to try it out!

      1. Personally I don’t see why Georgie Thompson isn’t the main presenter and Ant Davidson a full time pundit.

        1. @deanmachine Davidson should be a full time pundit indeed…

        2. I have. on occasion, watched F1 with chic’s, but, TBH, I,m not a big fan of chic’s interfering with my F1 broadcast.

      2. Wow, hey, where do you watch it from? could you give me the link? thanks a lot

      3. Yeah I too am watching Sky from an online stream. I’m from Australia and getting to watch their hour build up to Qualifying and 90 minutes to the race with great dudes like Martin, Damon, Johnny and Ant, instead of 20 minutes each with the mediocre Craig Baird and Darryl Beattie and downright atrocious Greg Rust has been the greatest thing ever.

        Not to mention I can finally watch practice now.

        I would imagine it would be unwise for me to post the online stream link here, but googling Ole Ole might get you somewhere.

        1. Come on, give us the link … Pleeeze

      4. JPQuesado (@joao-pedro-cq)
        29th May 2012, 10:12

        I watch it on the BBC because, in my point of view, it’s way better and they get deep into the soul of F1. But when I don’t have BBC to rescue me I do have to watch it on Sky on those dodgy websites.

        Though I like their F1 Show, Sky seems to be compensating viewers with quantity instead of quality, which I think isn’t good.

    4. What a disgrace, how come he even though about spitting those words?

    5. I think the Sky coverage has actually been excellent overall. The weak link is undoubtedly Lazenby – considering he has been around a while he has the odd rabbit-in-the-headlights look of someone totally starstruck by it all, he looks and acts like a kid who has won a competition to present F1.

      But the rest of the team is really well balanced in my opinion. Georgie Thompson could easily take over the main anchor berth and Natalie Pinkham I think is proving a natural for her role and was criminally underused at the BBC – the whatshername token female presenter on the Beeb is dry as old bones in comparison. Johnny Herbert brings the easy humour along with some actual knowledge of the sport – shame the BBC has had to continue with the tiresome Jordon in the ‘funny pundit’ role. Crofty finally got that step up that he’s deserved for years, Brundle is back with a proper commentator (and one that he actually seems to enjoy working with, remember Legard?). I even think the ‘SkyPad’ has proved it’s worth on occasion!

      Drop Lazenby, especially after the mystifying Princess Grace comment, and you’ll have a fantastic team. I honestly haven’t missed the BBC team at all, even when Sky sneaks in an occasional shot of one of them looking all forlorn.

      I’m still hopeful that they can use their Sky Sports muscle to get FOM to finally improve their broadcasts (SPLITSCREEN, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GIVE US SPLITSCREEN REPLAYS!!!), then it’ll be the almost perfect broadcast. Give us more vintage races in full regularly, and I’ll kiss Murdoch himself right on the lips.

      1. I would love to see super slow motion pictures of a pit stop.

      2. I’m still hopeful that they can use their Sky Sports muscle to get FOM to finally improve their broadcasts

        Totally. FOM broadcast needs to improve. It’s plain rubbish…

      3. @graham228221

        Natalie Pinkham I think is proving a natural for her role and was criminally underused at the BBC – the whatshername token female presenter on the Beeb is dry as old bones in comparison.

        I’m going to pretend you didn’t say that! :-P Lee is wonderful.

        Not sure I agree with you on many aspects. Jordan, Humphrey & DC are a lot more engaging and entertaining to listen to and watch than Lazenby, Hill and Herbert in my opinion. Sometimes when I’m watching Sky, despite it being my favourite sport, I’ve completely tuned out and I’m frantically searching for a BBC stream because it’s pretty boring.

        I wouldn’t even consider it more professional or insightful — it just seems like Lazenby asking the same questions and then Hill/Herbert attempting to give answers. DC is actually very well spoken and the BBC crew always have humour to fall back on, which not only keeps us entertained, but makes us feel happier about the whole thing.

        I think Sky are flogging Ted to death. It’s a shame because I used to love hearing from him in the pits, but they’ve got him doing this dramatic over-the-top role that ruins the novelty of even having him.

        As for Crofty — not sure about him so far. I don’t think he’s particularly good and certainly no-where near as good as Allen, Walker or Edwards have proven to be.

        The Sky Pad? It just seems like a giant prop to prove they’re doing lots of work to give the viewers an unrivalled experience when in fact it brings absolutely nothing to the coverage. I’d much rather see footage displayed on screen without the watching-someone-else’s-TV-through-my-TV effect. It ruins the thrill of onboard laps, too.

        I agree with @joao-pedro-cq — it seems like they’re extending the show to make it look like they’re catering to die-hards at the expense of anything remotely interesting.

    6. Personally I have generally found myself watching the Sky pre race coverage (BBC too often have Jake and EJ just mumbling about), although the BBC does have some nice features in there as well. For the races I prefer to watch them on the BBC. Brundle has started to get on my nerves with too often repeated cliches about certain drives, and often misses some things that happened. I like listening to Edwards, and DC is better at spotting what a car is doing compared to MB, IMO.

      But really, the coverage by both is a lot better than what is offered in many other countries.

      1. JPQuesado (@joao-pedro-cq)
        29th May 2012, 10:08

        It’s certainly a lot better than what we have in Portugal. It’s on pay-per-view but they don’t even have the commentators on the track, they do it all from a studio. And the commentators are really bad. I’ve only watched their coverage once but its just bad. They are true F1 fans like us, and I praise their efforts, but they have to be changed otherwise everyone falls asleep.

        1. @joao-pedro-cq When I lived in Lisbon I liked RTP’s coverage with Paulo Solipa but when F1 became a Sporttv exclusive I missed Solipa who was in the studio as well but was very balanced. Sporttv had briefly Tiago Monteiro on the booth as co-commentator but it never worked. When I moved to Angola, where I live now, I started watching a South African sports channel with BBC commentators and it was a different story. I don’t know whether it’s because they’re at the circuit or it’s down to their knowledge of the sport, because Brazil’s (TV Globo) Galvão Bueno is painful to hear even though he’s at the venue.

          1. JPQuesado (@joao-pedro-cq)
            29th May 2012, 12:08

            @jcost I can only remember a few things about RTP’s coverage of F1 as I was only ten when RTP dropped it to SportTV. But I do remember Paulo Solipa being very balanced. I’m just hoping that António Félix da Costa enters F1 soon so that RTP can try to recover F1. They lost a lot of viewers on Sunday afternoons after losing the rights to SportTV. But I’m not seeing RTP getting the rights again, at least on the short term. Cutting 50% of the annual budget doesn’t seem to encourage them trying to do it.

    7. Personally I think Sky’s coverage is very good but the BBC’s coverage is a lot more enjoyable – it is less serious and they have a bit of banter. Sky’s commentary team is definitely the better of the two.

  8. Rather than constantly trying to squeeze the teams to spend less money ( usually by homogenising the cars ) the teams should be demanding a bigger (like 90%) slice of the $1.5 Billion pie. As Norbert Haug so rightly says we need to see the midfield teams able to surprise, they can only do this with more innovation and innovation costs money.

    1. Umm, wouldn’t any extra money just go to unbalance things?

      For the midfield teams to be able to compete, they need rules which don’t allow radical designs. Such as the EBD. The nature of the Pirrelli tyre is also going a long way to help this.

      1. Sorry Mike I can’t agree with your points on the tyres or the money but I would like to see less dependence on trick aerodynamics, at the moment aero is the only avenue of development.

      2. they need rules which don’t allow radical designs

        Unfortunately you’re probably right. Unfortunate, because radical design is F1. The days when most radical solutions could be done on a budget have mostly gone. The F-duct was a simple idea of course, but other teams adopting it wasn’t easy or cheap.

  9. On another topic, I can’t complain about COTD’s choice of Webber as driver of the weekend, I would also like to express my appreciation of a flawless performance by my favourite driver whilst pondering what could have been at Barcelona. However I am a little conflicted because I also feel Heiki Kovelainen deserves recognition for the great performances he has put in driving a less than competitive ca.r

    1. I don’t think Heikki did anything more than usual. He was promoted to his position after the first corner accident and kept gaining positions as those in front dropped out. He kept Button behind but I don’t think that was particularly difficult with overtaking being so difficult. Heikki is always there or thereabouts and I think if F1 was as it was several years ago with more accidents and unreliability, we’d have seen a point or two from him already.

    2. Aditya Banerjee (@)
      29th May 2012, 17:25

      Well Webber is the safest choice, but really should a driver be voted as DOTW at Monaco if he inherited pole from someone else and held it to win, with a slender lead. But, I think Schumacher is a good choice, because he did nothing wrong on saturday and sunday. Alonso too, as gaining two positions from starting grid at monaco is pretty good, and he had a pretty good run at quali.

  10. A bit off topic to the round up, but I think the whole “cost saving” mantra in F1 is ridiculous. It’s just a poloy by Bernie to get more money really.

    The budget cap for instance… LOL. Let’s take a look at the teams that pretty much run within the originally propsed buget cap. HRT failures. Marussia – slightly better. Caterham (true lotus in my eyes) – still way off the pace.

    Cost cutting is silly, especially in an age where Bernie is demanding more money for tracks – note: more money for the teams More money than ever is being pumped into F1 by sponsors, and tracks, yet suddenly there is this cost cutting hoo-ha. Tell me, who will this benefit? Certainly not the fans, only the teams who’s profitability will increase massively. I say no cost saving plan should be implemented. F! is an elite sport, either have the money to compete or don’t. Simples. I’d rather no new teams come, than to make it more accessible to another one or two HRTs.

    If this doesn’t make sense it is because I’m highly intoxicated. If it does make sense, then sweet.

    1. @timi Of course fans stand to benefit from cost cutting. Stable costs reduces the chance of teams dropping out of the sport and increases the chance of more teams coming in. F1 hasn’t had a full field in 17 years, and I for one would like to see that changed.

      1. @keithcollantine Yes it increases the chance of teams coming in, but as I said above, I personally would not like to see any new teams enter and struggle like HRT, and Marussia. If anything it just lessens F1.

        I do agree with you on the reductions of costs leading to a lower chance of teams dropping out. But at this current time in F1 most teams are very, very well funded it doesn’t look as though most teams are even contemplating leaving. The only teams I see that may have financial difficulties, to the point of leaving are the bottom three teams, HRT in particular. One could also Force India, but Mallya always seems to have another company to pump in the cash.

        1. @timi That those three teams are yet to score a point is further indication that costs in F1 are still too high. So is the absence of any other new teams coming into the sport.

          Having a thin grid of 18 cars for the past three years would have “lessened” the sport more. I don’t see why anyone would prefer a grid of 18 cars, just a handful of which are competitive, to having a full 26-car grid with more competitive teams. That would clearly be healthier for the sport.

          I’ve said it before and I stick by it: fans arguing against cost cutting are turkeys voting for Christmas.

          1. @keithcollantine Haha I strongly disagree about having 18 cars (i.e no HRT, caterham, and marussia) would have lessened the sport, but that’s neither here nor there because I’m debating MORE teams like them arriving, not the teams already here.

            I don’t see why anyone would prefer a grid of 18 cars, just a handful of which are competitive, to having a full 26-car grid with more competitive teams.

            I understand what you mean, and yes it would be healthier for the sport if your utopian idea came to fruition.. but you must also understand how presumptuous your idea is. It’s an ideal that would take many years to fulfill. 26 car grid with more competitive teams is, in itself slightly ironic since the newest team would most likely be well off the pace… while the 3 current newest teams are also well off the pace even now. Of course cost cutting would even it out a bit. But the same legacy dynamic remains, in that the better engineers and designers will lean towards the bigger teams. Those same bigger teams who will most likely disregard the budget cap. Much like last year’s dispute about RBR and the RRA.

            I think the RRA does enough, basically. We’ve seen this year an immensely competitive field, even caterham are closing the gap to the midfield. Cost cutting is not a guarantee to a 26 car grid with more competitive teams as you’re hinting.

    2. <blockquote.I say no cost saving plan should be implemented. F! is an elite sport, either have the money to compete or don’t. Simples.
      The problem with that is that you get a situation where the championship is almost always decided by whoever spends the most.

      1. @prisoner-monkeys I didnt hear anyone complain the last 60 years.. And that is a very very false assumption. Money takes you near the front but never guarantees championships

        1. @timi – It’s only been in the past ten years or so that costs have spiralled out of control. In the 1990s, you could establish a team for about $500,000. Today, you need at least $50 million just to make the grid.

    3. @timi F1 is not the only elite sport with cost cutting measures in place, actually it’s a trend. UEFA’s head Michel Platini is eager to implement his own measures to cap spending in European football and US basketball league, NBA, has salary cap for years other pro leagues in America have similar schemes.

      1. @jcost That bears absolutely no relevance to the points I made in my original comment. I suggest you re-read my comment. In short, bernie is charging tracks more to be on the calendar, ticket prices are also going up, teams are getting more money, very very bad new teams could be allowed to join. Ticket prices wont go down even if cost cutting is implemented. These are the points you should have gleaned from my original post.

        1. Except teams are not getting more money. Thats an assumption you made. The money ends up with Bernie and CVC. What makes you think that teams get a bigger share of the profits than before? Bernie is increasing the TV license fees and the race fees but this extra revenue is not trickling down to the teams. (some of it is but not enough). Thats what you should be angry about – not cost cutting.

          If the profits DID go to the teams, the increase in ticket prices could be justified by the fact that we would be seeing more innovation and smarter solutions at the very edge of what is possible with current technology. The problem is that ticket prices are increasing and the money ends up with a few super rich investors who dont re-invest it back into F1. Thats why most teams are struggling to find enough money to be competitive and why the FIA need to constantly limit the technical regulations to cut costs. So thus we only see innovation in a very limited spectrum (basically only aero) and pay a bigger price for it.

          Thats where you are wrong timi. Show me a team that is actually profitable. You’ll maybe find one or two from the entire field.

          1. They don’t get a bigger share. I never said that, I said they get more money. They get a percentage of what is made by F1 as a whole. So, like I said, with increasing track prices to be on the calendar, F1 revenue increases, and teams get more money. simple. fact. I didnt say it was huge amounts, but what I said is completely correct.

            You have now assumed that what I said was at an extreme end where almost all profits go back to the teams.

            But you are right with the profitability of teams. Almost none are profitable. But that again has nothing to do with my main point

          2. timi,

            Where did you get the idea that “the teams get a percentage of what is made by F1 as a whole”? Up until now, teams get money from formula one based on their position in the constructor’s championship. Some teams like Ferrari have special privileges but in general the amount of money you receive is based on your results in F1. What Bernie charges TV companies or tracks has nothing to do with it.

            That is why it is important to cut costs so that more teams are able to fight for the top positions that pay out cash. If you dont like this idea because its “just an AIM”, then please suggest another solution.

            I also am not a fan of cost cutting. I’d rather see engine development, tyre war, and more freedom in general for the designers. But this is unsustainable in the current environment. Unfortunately we have to keep costs down. Unless (Bernie is willing to share more with the teams) This was the reason why teams wanted to split and create their own series back in 2008. They would essentially cut out the middle man. Tickets would be cheaper and tracks wouldn’t have to pay so much. At least that was the idea. There are many down sides with that too however. I believe cost cutting is a better option than for F1 to split in two. I am open for any other alternatives you might have.

        2. @timi, I guess @prisoner-monkeys has made the point. Cost cutting measures are intended to create more competition, otherwise F1 becomes less attractive for independent teams. The day teams sole incentive to enter the series is getting a slice of the pie F1 will become very attractive for speculators looking for buying and selling shares for nothing but quick profit making the ‘circus’ very (even more) unstable.

          1. @jcost Yes you are right but like some of the others, you aren’t even arguing with what I said. I agree with everything in your comment. But my rebuttle is that it’s a utopian idea.
            What happens if there isnt more competition? And it’s just the same as it is now, but with less money involved? To be honest, we’re both making assumptions. Neither of us can guarantee it will be one way or the other. I understand the AIM of cost cutting. But that’s all it is,- an aim. I remember the AIM of adjustable front wings.. I remember the AIM of FOTA.. I remember the AIM of the rarely applied 107% rule. Aim is good, but it is a healthy thing to be sceptical.

  11. There was no team error that cost Vergne anything. After the start incident, he got stuck behind both Marussias, and was passed by Perez. The team decided for an early pit stop, which meant he started lapping faster than many drivers and allowed him to leapfrog into 8th. That became 7th with Schumacher’s problem and JEV was well behind the top 6 and well clear of the Force Indias when his tyres started dropping heavily. He lost some 16 seconds in 3 laps and obviously had to pit. That put him outside the points, so the team used the pit stop to switch to inters, as they didn’t have much to lose from there anyway.

    1. The error might have been not to call him in a lap or 2 earlier, but not the stop itslef.

      Guess they waited with stopping because of news of rain falling any minute, so it still was a bit of a gamble though.

      1. @bascb
        Yep. They did lose around 10 seconds by waiting too long, but it didn’t cost them anything. Had they pitted him immediately, he would have got out behind the Force Indias, Kimi and Senna, and would have likely caught them, but it would have been pretty much impossible to pass. So there were only two ways of getting into the points – either by waiting on others to have problems, or to take a risk. It didn’t pay off, but they had nothing to lose anyway. Had the rain come, they would have a good chance of retaining the 7th place – at least. You never know in these conditions, and the leaders would likely wait who would blink first. If there was a repeat of Spa 2008, they would have had a chance of a podium, or even a win.

        So it was definitely worth a shot.

        1. Fully agree that it was worth the shot, big shame it did not reap any results. The race surely could have done with a few others making a bit of a gamble!

    2. @enigma – One has to wonder what Vergne was doing to his tyres all weekend if he absolutely had to change onto the intermediates …

    3. They way I see it, Torro Rosso are destined to finish 9th in the championship. They are miles behind Williams, Sauber and FI and Caterham isn’t a threat to them this year. So they effectively have nothing to lose by taking some gambles like this.
      If it did rain they could have potentially won the race, or got on the podium at least. And at worst, they lost what, a measly 4 points.
      I would have gambled on the rain too if I was in their position.

    4. I hadn’t realised that while watching.
      I just thought Michel Vaillant-strategy again – like with Kimi at Ferrari.

  12. F1 unpredictability may be a turn-off for fans, says Jenson Button

    That would probably then be an unprecedented case in the history of motorsports. NASCAR Sprint Cup Series has had 8 different winners in 12 races this year, yet I haven’t heard anyone complain about that. Seriously, how can some unpredictability be a bad thing when talking about sporting competitions? And it’s not like HRT and Marussia are suddenly winning races.

    1. I liked Prost’s take on it – he said that it was probably more interesting for the viewers like this, but he, as a driver, would prefer having a dominiant car, or at 2 dominant teams.

      Guess its more about not liking that small things suddenly make you sit behind another 10 cars for Button!

      1. @bascb I don’t agree with JB. I don’t think Maldonado will become WDC, it will be either a Ferrari, McLaren or Red Bull a surprise would be see a Mercedes or a Lotus take the crown but nothing particularly shocking like Brawn GP dominating the field like we saw in 2009.

        It’s tight, but not everybody is up there, the difference is that we have 8 or 9 potential winners every race instead of 4 or 5.

        1. Pretty much like that @jcost, I think its great for F1 to have up to 5-7 teams who can have a go at winning a race, making it more of a season long battle, rather than a shootout between 2-3 drivers

        2. Yeah, exactly. Imagine, worst case scenaro, that those 4 cars are made up of Red Bull & Ferrari, well, we all know, that it’s going to be VET & ALO doing all the winning, MAS and WEB filling 3 & 4 and no one else getting a look in.

          I think that would suck. Might as well just have 6 car Gp’s like the 2005 US GP.

        3. @jcost It would be great if we had 8-9 every race, but we have 2-3 really.
          We might see 8-9 different winners this season, but only 1 or 2 teams has the potential to win a particular GP. If we had 4-5 “equal” teams, that could win at every race, that would be awsome, but now I have to agree with JB.

          1. @bag0 I understand your point but I guess JB’s opinion is not in line with that.

  13. I wouldn’t worry about Button’s comments. I have noticed a certain correlation between the positivity about the unpredictable nature of it this year and recent results. Christian Horner was criticising it after Spain, but seems happy about it today.

  14. sky’s comment about princess grace was not only tasteless [ typical Sky ] but wrong
    she was killed in a crash in France

  15. What about a budget cap related to engine development just for engine manufacturers. Easier to police than an entire teams workings and a lack of engine development is a sad loss over the past few years but I still love Formula 1.

  16. Ofcourse Christian Horner will say these things after Mark Webber has just won Monaco, for the second time in three years. Personally I think Webber is the perfect driver to put alongside Vettel, but it would not surprise me if Red Bull did choose someone else.
    Not so much in a racing sense, but purely business. You have to think who buys Red Bull drinks, young people! Having a young, vibrant lineup would certainly appeal to their marketing people and that for me would consist of pairing Vettel and Hamilton. I am convinced that this will happen in the end, at the expense of Mark Webber.
    There is no doubt that Webber is highly underrated in F1 circles. No one really talks of him in the same vein as other drivers of his ilk, and for me that is wrong.

    1. Personally I think Webber is the perfect driver to put alongside Vettel, but it would not surprise me if Red Bull did choose someone else.
      Not so much in a racing sense, but purely business. You have to think who buys Red Bull drinks, young people! Having a young, vibrant lineup would certainly appeal to their marketing people and that for me would consist of pairing Vettel and Hamilton.

      Judging from Red Bull’s history I think replacing a driver on his marketable value is unlikely.
      Why would RBR ever have taken on DC or Webber in the first place, surely they should have kept a young driver, with appeal in say the vast American market; Scott Speed where are you now?!
      Also if they wanted a cool, young, good looking driver, why on earth ditch the Red Bull marketing dream that is DJ hispter Jaime?
      No, I think the best marketing RBR can give the fizzy drink is World Championships and World Champions.

  17. Autosport: “By having this slot, which the FIA says can be so small that even a sheet of paper would not fit through, the holes are no longer enclosed and become openings.”

    What rubbish, the FIA covering themselves again for a bad mistake, RBR’s design is not a slot or opening, it is a hole, saying the gap that your can’t even fit paper through, so can’t see, and makes it an opening which is legal (alla Ferrari et al.’s design which is clearly a open slot, you could fit a bus through it ;-) ) would appear to be stretching the truth just a little. After looking at a few high resolution images the FIA must think we are born yesterday. Maybe we are, and maybe the FIA are correct but it would not be the first time that the FIA’s incompetence has been exposed.

    So, it would seem, they wrote to RBR and said it is legal and are now trying to justify that decision by saying an opening so small that no-one can see makes it legal. Really?

  18. *hipster Jaime, obviously!

Comments are closed.