Calado pursuing Force India race seat

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: GP2 driver James Calado confirms his management team are pursuing a seat for him at Force India next year.

Which drivers and teams are you supporting?

Later this week we’ll take a look at who are the most popular drivers and teams on F1 Fanatic at the moment.

Here’s how to show who you’re supporting on F1 Fanatic:

  • Log in
  • Select Edit My Profile from the top-right menu
  • Select F1 Teams and Drivers
  • Make your selections then click Save Changes


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Calado ‘hopeful’ over talks (Sky)

“I can’t hide that we’re having discussions with Force India, my manager Nicolas Todt is talking to them now, and it’s hopefully likely that things will happen in the near future.”

Webber believes F1 quality dropping (Autosport)

“There are a lot of talented guys out there, but a lot are slipping through the net unfortunately. That’s a sad state. [Robin] Frijns for example is a phenomenal young talent, [but] has got no cash.”

Ton up for Sutil (ESPN)

“At the moment I’m 11th in the championship. I want to be probably ninth or eighth at the end of the season so still some things to improve.”

Could innovation in Formula One drive sustainable technology? (The Guardian)

“It used to take thousands of hours to build a chassis out of carbon fibre – now it takes four and a half hours. It is not just about the transfer of technology but also transfer of expertise.”

Front-wing vortex breakdown (McCabism)

“Whilst Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) simulations are the CFD workhorse of modern motorsport, RANS is known to be inadequate for representing separated flows, and in particular for representing large-scale vortical phenomena, such as vortex evolution and breakdown.”

Maurice Hamilton – I talked my way in (Mario Muth via YouTube)

Underwhelming sporting victories (The Telegraph)

“With the might of Ferrari up against two minnows of the sport, the six-car race became a procession for [Michael] Schumacher and his team-mate Rubens Barrichello who filled the top two positions.”


Comment of the day

@Firebee thinks race organisers shouldn’t stop fans taking essential supplies like water in with them:

The organisers of the group I was with told us that last year at the Hungaroring stewards threw the screw caps of bottles away at entry. So we were prepared for some funny business with bringing in bottles before hand. The organiser told us it is different each year at the Hungaroring.

A friend of mine had two or three one-and-a-half litre bottles with him in his bag, he had to leave two of them behind or give them away. Each day his bag did get checked. They also checked my messenger bag once. And I did see them checking bags of other people too. In that heat, a bit too much if you ask me, let people bring what they want and need I think is best in such conditions.

The 400 Forints (1.16) for a bottle of water I thought was quite expensive too, by the way. The food in general left much to be desired in my opinion. Had some fries on Friday but that’s it. No big sausage etc… for me.

Weird that they uphold such rules at the more hotter Grands Prix. You’d think they would cool down on the rules and let people enjoy it to the max and mind their health too. Seriously irresponsible but there’s not much what we can do about that.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to F1Antics!

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

Stirling Moss scored his final world championship race victory at the Nurburgring Nordschelife on this day in 1961.

Moss mastered the tricky wet conditions at the track to win ahead of the Ferraris of Wolfgang von Trips and Phil Hill.

Image © Force India

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.

70 comments on “Calado pursuing Force India race seat”

  1. Someone needs to get Mario Muth his own TV series, better than a lot of professional interviews.

  2. Interesting perspective from Webber there.
    I can see his point, the comparison of the Melbourne grids in 2002 to 2013 was interesting.

    I think that the talent at the top end of the field is higher than almost any other point in the sport’s history (with maybe the mid-60s slightly in front). Drivers the quality of Alonso, Vettel, Hamilton, Raikonen, Button and Webber are all top quality grand prix drivers.
    But comparitively the depth of the 2002 field looked pretty amazing (in hindsight).

    1. If you look at the 2002 field, you’ll see 15 (future) race winners. However, I think the 2002 field had a lot more ‘has-beens’ on the grid than we have today, and Alex Young is miles off a driver like Van der Garde or Chilton.

      Let’s not forget Kimi was still a young gun and was still learning, Mark was a rookie, Sato crashed a lot, Salo, Irvine, Panis, Frentzen and Villeneuve were not exactly at their peak, McNish never really got it on in F1, Massa looked out of his depth and Barrichello, R.Schumacher, Montoya, DC were no where near Schumacher that year. Drivers like Trulli, Fisichella, Heidfeld and Button weren’t super-impressive then either.

      Again, taking their entire careers into perspective, 2002 look more impressive than 2013. But with higher reliability and multiple, experienced WDCs, the odds of getting an odd win in (Panis, Trulli, Fisichella, Frentzen though not the same, would be unlikely now) are lower now. I’m sure guys like Di Resta, Sutil, Hulkenberg, Rosberg, Grosjean and Perez are in no way less drivers now, than some race winners were in 2002.

      1. Again, taking their entire careers into perspective, 2002 look more impressive than 2013.

        Pretty much, yeah. Which does nothing but show us its hard to judge up front really @npf1!
        As you mention these guys still have all of their careers ahead and can become multiple race winners, and champions (lets add Ricciardo, Bianchi, hopefully Frijns, Calado etc) in the coming years.

    2. You are right about that. I was surprised when I looked at the 2002 line up. Apart from Alex Yoong and Enrique Bernoldi, the grid was very solid..pretty much all of them had been on the podium or did so in years to come.

      The front of the grid now is better than ever, I think what Webber was alluding to was the rest of the grid, which is quite poor.

    3. I disagree with Webber.

      People complain about pay drivers such as Chilton and Van der Garde now, but 10 years ago, there were a few drivers just as bad, if not worse; such as Bernoldi, MicNish, and Yoong.

      The midfiend talent pool was deeper back then, I admit. In 2002 we had Raikkonen, Fisichella, Trulli, Panis, Heidfeld, Irvine, and De La Rosa. Today, we have Di Resta, Sutil, Hulkenberg, and who else? The midfield is not as strong anymore, I admit.

      The sub-top drivers are about equal. I rate Webber, Massa, Button, and Rosberg equal to Barrichello, Coulthard, Villeneuve, Montoya, and Ralf Schumi.

      Back then we had the king Michael Schumacher; but today we have 4 elite drivers, Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso, and Raikkonen.

      So today’s grid IMO is better than it was 10 years ago.

      1. +1.

        Webber is human, and we tend to over value recent events…

      2. Exactly my thoughts.

    4. I think the 2013 lineup is the stronger.

      One thing which can distort our view is that we don’t know what all the young talent on the lower half of that 2013 grid is going to do. In all probability there are one or two future champions in there, we just don’t know them yet. So somebody in 2023 looking at the same list we are looking at might exclaim “Wow, Alonso, Vettel, Hamilton, Raikkon, Button, Bottas and Vergne – seven WDC winners! What an absolutely incredible depth of talent they had back then!”

    5. We have the four top level drivers in Raikkonen, Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso. Their only match in 2002 was Schumacher. Below them we have the highly talented, established drivers such as Webber, Rosberg, Massa (on his day!) and Button. These drivers are IMO the equal or better of Barrichello, Coulthard, Fisichella, Montoya and Trulli. Then on the 2002 grid there are the drivers who may have had flashes of brilliance but amounted to little like Villeneuve (post ’97), Salo, Panis, Irvine and Frentzen. Hindsight is 20/20 but I’d take Perez, Hulkenberg, Bianchi, Grosjean or Ricciardo over any of those lads. The midfield we have now are all young and many have fantastic potential. I’d take the current grid over 2002 as a whole any day!

      Mark is right that there is some top talent not getting through due to money. We won’t see the effects of this for a few years though, when the next generation of drivers are all Guttierez’s and Chilton’s, because only those with the fat wallets can make it that far. Money has always played a part in getting a driver to F1, but is it now playing a dominant role in the process, to the detriment of talent?

    6. I was surprised to read Webber’s comments. If you take a look at today’s grid, besides the obvious world champions you’ve got multiple GP2 champions, multiple GP2 runner-ups, a couple Formula Renault 3.5 runner-ups and a handful of F3/GP3 champions. The reason why they’re not getting ‘podiums’ is becuase a) the retirement rate isn’t what it used to be; b) the top guys really have upped their game.

      Also, the age of F1 drivers is quite low – a lot of them are in the sport for their first or second season. If you look at the 2002 grid it’s comprised of veterans. With experience comes consisitency and reliability, which is a luxury the current generation of GP2 drivers don’t have nowadays. You can’t expect a field comprised of 20% rookies to deliver straight away – to the contrary, given the pressure they’re under they’re perhaps trying to impress too much.

      Regarding pay-drivers, of course there’s better talent out there. But some of the drivers on the grid today (with the exception of Chilton) really are not that bad, it’s just that in comparison to the sharp end of the field they’re average.

      What I think is true though is that today’s field seems a bit lacklustre for the lack of a better word, but that has I don’t think nothing to do with the drivers but with the sport, which seems to be becoming more and more about reaching quotas and targets. in other words it is becoming more professional – and what that means is that the drivers are more efficient, too.

  3. I support loads of drivers as indicted by my profile so I assume each will count towards the poll?

  4. 2005 US GP – The second most shameful incident in the last 10 years after Crashgate in 2008 Singapore GP.
    I would still say the fault was entirely Michelin’s. The Michelin cars could have taken the corner slowly on the inside. It would have been two races effectively. But that would still be better than what we witnessed that day.

    1. The Michelin cars could have taken the corner slowly on the inside. It would have been two races effectively. But that would still be better than what we witnessed that day.

      That wouldn’t have been feasible. The optimal line for that corner involves starting out high, sweeping low through the corner and back out high.

      There is no way that the faster Bridgestone cars and slower Michelin cars wouldn’t have converged at greatly different speeds. It would have been way too dangerous

    2. Ralf schumacher probably saw it differently!

    3. @sumedh

      You cannot be serious.

      Blaming Michelin alone for Indianapolis 2005 is completely unethical and is a disservice to the roles that the FIA, Bridgestone, Ferrari, the seven Michelin-shod teams themselves, and Toyota’s utter setup failures in practice all played when the lights were extinguished and the six cars went on their way.

      Michelin may have had an inferior tire to run at a newly-paved track they had no data on. Bridgestone had run the entire month of May, through Firestone, the sole tire supplier of IndyCar.
      The FIA, for the most part, allowed no concessions to Michelin.
      Ferrari (Bridgestone) had absolutely no issue in getting their terrible car a momentary win (visions of Monza 1988 in their heads), no matter what very generous race conditions Michelin offered to them and the FIA.
      I think Michelin did all that it could, and its seven teams did well to not stab each other in the back.
      But who is to say that, Toyota’s setups aside, the Michelin teams could have run the GP with more incidents than Silverstone 2013?

      It’s so amusing when a host of errors and mistakes is placed on the victim.

      1. It’s so amusing when a host of errors and mistakes is placed on the victim

        The victim in the 2005 US GP fiasco were the spectators and TV audience. NOT Michelin.

        All the solutions that Michelin (or Michelin-shod teams) provided (building a chicane, Michelin teams not scoring any points, Mochelin teams using the pitlane every time) were bound to be rejected by the other teams. There was no reason for Ferrari to compromise for Michelin’s fault.

        What Michelin could have done (and Ferrari would not have been able to stop) is make the Michelin-shod teams take the turn slowly and from the inside. If I remember correctly, the problem occurred only when the speeds exceeded 250 km/hr. It would have been two races effectively and Michelin runners would have been all lapped twice by the end of the race. But at least the spectators would have got to see some racing!

        1. There was no reason for Ferrari to compromise for Michelin’s fault.

          There was: the over 100.000 people in the grandstands.

          What would have been the disadvantage of racing, but only the Bridgestone guys scoring points to Ferrari? That they would not be seen winning? If you think about it, which option was less of a PR deblacle?

          I do not know what exact solution would have been best, although I am convinced that had Bridgestone warned the FIA (or Michelin) about their own trouble with the Indy test on Firestones a month previous, the whole affair could have been completely avoided. After that, it was all about the utter failure of those involved in the sport to look further than their own interests (not just Bridgestone, Ferrari. The same goes for the other teams, the FIA, and Bernie as well as Michelin all playing their politics).

        2. What Michelin could have done (and Ferrari would not have been able to stop) is make the Michelin-shod teams take the turn slowly and from the inside.

          In theory, but you can’t expect racing drivers to drive slowly when they are fighting for position. What if Alonso and Raikkonen were wheel-to-wheel there, do you think both would have lifted?

    4. The Michelin cars could have taken the corner slowly on the inside.

      Completely unrealistic. There was no way for the drivers to know how slowly they needed to drive to avoid the problem. Inevitably some unlucky driver would have gone a bit too quickly without knowing it and paid the price with an enormous and potentially very dangerous accident.

      1. I always thought the bigger issue would be the huge speed differential on the subsequent straight. Turn 13 was a flat-out corner (By design) and therefore the Bridgestone runners would be coming up to 200mph whereas the Michelin guys may not have even got to 100.. The closing speed could result in a horrendous accident should a Michelin runner miss a blue flag.
        US2005 was an example of the right decisions being made, but by the time they had been made, the damage was already done

    5. The Michelin cars could have taken the corner slowly on the inside. It would have been two races effectively

      Maybe if they had a pits regime they could have just that, but apart from that this “solution” is just nonsense.
      Just look at the last safety warning to the drivers that also involved tyres blowing – this year in Silverstone. All drivers were warned to stay off the Kerbs. Some did, at times. Others didn’t at all, because they did not feel it was dangerous and they were racing each other after all.

      As for the part where Michelin is fully to blame – if you want to believe that, fine. But if you look at all the information available (some of it mentioned in the post by @alonsowdc) its pretty clear that Bridgestone could have prevented it, had they tipped the FIA of the nature of the new tarmac, its clear that the FIA could have gone about a better way to solve the matter, and the teams and Bernie also did their thing with politicking to bring us that farce of a race. I would say of all of them Michelin was certainly not the party who caused that singlehandedly.

      I do agree with you that the victims were none of those who run the sport but the people who pay for the sport to happen at all – several hundred thousand fans sitting in the stands (and to a lesser extent, the fans watching on TV.) Sumedh

      1. While I agree that using the term ‘victim’ as it relates to Michelin for what happened during Indianapolis 2005 is probably inaccurate, I definitely feel as if they have been entirely persecuted from the F1 community ever since that weekend.

        It only pushed the best tire supplier in all of motorsport out of Formula One.

  5. stertserrfriend
    6th August 2013, 2:58

    If I had 10p for every horror story about not being able to take your own water and being subjected to what Martin Brundle describes as a heart attack in a tray( cheese, chips an mayonnaise) I wouldn’t be hear to moan about it because I’d be drinking Perrier an eating prawn cocktail.

  6. I wouldn’t mind seeing Calado and Bottas at Force India next year. It’s a risk because it means taking on a rookie and a sophomore, but I think di Resta and Sutil have done everything they can do, and despite McLaren’s dismal start to the season, they should easily overcome Force India soon. It’s time for some change at Force India: take Bottas for the Mercedes engine subsidy, and Calado for some fresh blood.

    1. I think they could keep either Sutil or DiResta on and take Calado. Would be ok with having Colado do the 3rd driver, if they put a guy like Frijns in the driver seat. Then for 2015 they can have Frijns and Calado!
      Bottas is almost certainly going to stay at Williams, after all he has long standing ties with the team.

      1. @bascb – Bottas is managed by Toto Wolff. With Wolff’s position in Mercedes, it would not be hard for him to get Bottas into Force India.

        1. Yeah, but why change him over to FI when he can just stay at Williams and develop further there. Williams will have the Mercedes engines next year as well, and with the tyres going more conservative, I doubt they will get it as much wrong as they did this year from an aero perspective @prisoner-monkeys

          1. @bascb – Williams probably felt the same way after their 2011 season. And for a while, they looked like they had succeeded in reversing their fortunes. But then the 2013 season started,and they hit a new low.

          2. And for a while, they looked like they had succeeded in reversing their fortunes. But then the 2013 season started,and they hit a new low.

            oh, really, I didn’t know that (sarcasm alert)

            Yeah, @prisoner-monkeys that is exactly why I mentioned the tyres, as it seems that that was a big part of why they completely missed the boat this year. As did McLaren and Sauber underestimate the tyre change.

          3. And Force India didn’t miss the boat. Given that they have been more competitive and more consistent than Williams in recent years, a move there would make sense for Bottas. Especially if it had Toto Wolff’s blessing.

    2. What about Bianchi? He was not taken for 2013 because he lacked experienced, so if he’s still in the picture he could land a seat.

      1. @enigma – He’s a Ferrari driver, so I think he’ll end up going where Ferrari send him. After completely missing the boat on young driver development programmes and then losing Perez to McLaren, Ferrari won’t want to see a second driver scooped up by another non-Ferrari team if they can help it.

        At this point, I think we’ll see Hulkenberg and Bianchi at Sauber, with whoever comes out on top moving to Ferrari in 2015. Sergey Sirotkin would take another year to develop, and if Ferrari are smart, they’ll get Frijns a place at Marussia. That way, they’ll have three highly-rated young drivers in their stable and would be in a position to hedge their bets on Sirotkin and pick him up if he lives up to his potential.

        It’s not quite what I’d do (if it were me, Massa would be on the first flight back to Brazil), but it would leave Ferrari sitting on a good hand.

  7. I’m glad F1-fan didn’t think Mark Webber’s interview on Top Gear was newsworthy. I was just looking at my local news website ( and because Mark called Vettel a ‘boy’ they’re saying it’s an “extrodinary broadside against his team-mate”. Gimme a break. Vettel is the quintessential boy-racer.

    1. “It’s kids i’n’it”

    2. He’s got a fair amount of balls though (Malaysia anyone?). That was textbook Webber except Vettel got the move done! :P

      1. those cheeky kids :-)

      2. @vettel1 Couldn’t understand at the time why Mark hadn’t put that arrogant kid into the wall for his trouble(that wasn’t far off there). Now I do:

        MW: “Father told me to never kick kids”


        1. Jack (@jackisthestig)
          6th August 2013, 11:26

          That was cringe-worthy when Webber said that. He might consider himself the big man and Vettel a boy but Mark is the one who has repeatedly had his pants pulled down for the last four seasons. I just cant understand why a bloke who calls himself ‘Aussie Grit’ whinges and feels sorry for himself so much just because he is being beaten by a better driver.

          1. To be honest the only time i felt he winged and cried was in malaysia… I would’ve liked to see Webber being very aggressive with vettel during the passing move than complaining after the race.. and the comment on top gear, I guess some people are taking it way too seriously..

        2. I am sure Vettel will take this “boys” comment in the humorous sense and give it back to Webber with grace and dignity.

          Remember how Vettel responded to the “boos” at Silverstone.

        3. @montreal95 I’m guessing he thought the same of Britain 2011? ;) Reap what you sow, reap what you sow.

          1. @vettel1 How is Your comment relevant to the matter of my post above mate?

            And though we discussed it a million times before(not me and you but posters here in general), was there a pre-race Multi 21 in Silverstone 2011? Didn’t both drivers agree to it pre-Malaysia 2013? Also what was the WDC lead for SV at Silv 2011? Shades of Austria 2001-2 wasn’t it?

          2. @montreal95

            When it comes to intentions of the drivers, Silverstone 2011 is exactly the same as Malaysia 2012 with roles reversed. One driver attacking the other in spite of a team order forbidding him from doing so.

            When it comes to results, there is that one key difference between the two. Vettel could overtake, Webber couldn’t.
            So, bringing up Silverstone 2011 in a “Multi-21” discussion (as @vettel1 has did) is completely relevant.

          3. @montreal95

            Couldn’t understand at the time why Mark hadn’t put that arrogant kid into the wall for his trouble

            In reply to that – Webber shouldn’t have been surprised. ;)

            I’m not wanting to start another debate over the whole issue but honestly I find the pre-race agreement argument quite pointless: the whole issue is that they both ignored team orders, that’s all that matters. I also don’t blame either of them, as I think drivers should do everything to win (with the obvious exception being if there’s a championship at stake). Quite simply I don’t think any teams should be using team orders before one of their drivers has no realistic chance of winning the championship.

      3. Yeah, in devil’s advocate position, I think webber should’ve seen what was happening and turned up his engine and blocked like hell. I don’t understand why he didn’t.

  8. There is too much technology that assists the drivers nowadays. They have all these sensors on the cars to let the pit wall know exactly what is wrong with car instead of the driver figuring it out for himself. As far as I am concerned the only information that the pit wall should receive during race should come from communication via the radio. In other words the drivers are becoming too dependent on technology to help them instead of developing a “relationship” with the car. If you fix that problem, and then we would see the untalented drivers (pay drivers) dropped from the sport pretty quick.

    1. I don’t think the technology being there is what is the issue. Its more that drivers get in the sport when they are inexperienced, and get used to being told over the radio what knob to turn at which part of the track, how hard and where to brake, even what line to take based on the data.

      That is why its good to hear a Hamilton say that he wants to just focus on his driving, or Kimi wanting to be left alone, or even Vettel completely ignoring his team that the car is on the limit and going faster still. It shows the driver IS the one who does the driving and yes, he likes the information (see Alonso, Button, Vettel, and Rosbert for example asking for a brief of the situation on track and feedback on what they feel with the car) but they judge for themselves what they do with it.

      Not like Massa who is more or less babysitted throughout the race, something we have been seeing teams doing with more and more drivers.

    2. Back in 2002 the drivers had traction control and launch control so I don’t think modern technology makes driving an F1 car any easier than it was back in those days.

      … drivers are becoming too dependent on technology to help them instead of developing a “relationship” with the car. If you fix that problem, and then we would see the untalented drivers (pay drivers) dropped from the sport pretty quick.

      I don’t think so. For whatever reason, whether it’s the lack of a budget cap or the poor distribution of Formula One’s massive income, half the teams need alternative ways to bring in finances. When that problem is fixed, then you will see a lesser prevalence of “pay” drivers.

      I also think to call any driver “untalented” is very unfair.

  9. I haven’t followed Calado’s season closely, but purely looking at the results he has been disappointing this year, which should have been his year to prove himself. I certainly haven’t seen anything to justify a race seat in Force India in 2014.

    Having said that, I wouldn’t be sorry to see him take Sutil’s seat. I’ve grown a bit tired of Adrian’s complaining this year. I thought his (and Force India’s) stance on changing the tyres was pretty stupid. It was clear to anyone in the paddock that something had to be done after Silverstone, but they were still “well, they never failed on our cars, so I don’t see the need to change them”. And even sillier was Sutil’s recent conspiracy theory that “whatever people say, the new tyres are for the top teams”.

    Finally, there is the way in which he talks about my favourite driver Hamilton. I don’t know exactly what happened in Shanghai in 2011, or what subsequently happened between them, but I don’t think Sutil is ideally placed to lecture anybody on respect, given that he is the one guilty of assault with a champagne glass.

    1. @adrianmorse – ART as a whole seem to be struggling this year, so perhaps Calado’s results aren’t as bad as first thought.

    2. I just listened to an interview with Mich Evans, and he mentions how its pretty tough to get the car setup and working its tyres in GP2 this year. It seems ART have not hit the sweet spot really this year @adrianmorse, so its only fair to take that in account when judging their drivers.

    3. I think that Sutil is perfectly suited to talk about respect @adrianmorse. That he did let himself boil over, and hit Lux, is inexcusable. But the guy had a year to think it over and has come back a more complete human being (just compare his interviews before and now), so I would say he is fully qualified to judge that. A lot better than you, if you say you don’t even know what happened between them!

      As for the respect – it seems that Hamilton would have been the only one who could have confirmed what exactly Lux did say and do to provoke the attack (the others were Lux invitees and would surely not have testified against him), and avoid Sutil being conficted. The way Hamilton sort of stopped taking his calls and just did not turn up for the hearing would certainly not seem to be what a good friend would do.
      I understand why Hamilton (and his management/lawyers) chose rather not to get involved any more, but the respectful thing would have been to at least tell Sutil that he would not be testifying face to face. Even better would be to have been there and support his friend, even if not by testifying.

    4. Di Resta is the one who needs replacing; he thinks he is Gods gift to motor racing, and the fault is never his.
      It’s always the car, or his teams fault.
      That attitude is ridiculous, and I’m surprised Force India haven’t replaced him already. After this year, I really hope Paul isn’t on the grid.

      1. I agree. His attitude is dreadful. I have never liked that sort of driver. He ought to be grateful that his team are good enough for him to score points, not angry because they aren’t good enough for him. And it’s not like he’s quick enough to get away with slagging off the team. There are dozens of drivers out there who would do just as well in a Force India seat and would be grateful for the opportunity.

      2. I’ve predicted in the F1 2014 driver line-up thread that due to a dip in form for Force India, he heavily criticises the team and eventually Mallya drops him for his poor attitude. I’m hoping this happens anyway. Occasionally talking about driving for other teams is also deflating for his team to hear.

    5. I recently read somewhere that James’ chassis was damaged in one of the early races of the season, but the team only discovered the damage a few weeks ago. So he had spent most of the season racing a broken car.

      Not sure if I’ve got all the facts right, perhaps someone smarter than me can help me out…!

      1. @jackysteeg – “We just found out the chassis was bent” is a favourite excuse of under-performing teams at a loss to explain their lack of results, alongside “Our wind tunnel wasn’t calibrated properly”.

        1. I wonder if Alonso has bent his chassis, but not found out about it yet?

  10. Calado has been very disappointing in GP2 this season after a solid rookie season.
    Making it even more disappointing is the fact that this seasons GP2 field is easily the weakest since it’s inception. He should have walked to the title in that field.

    1. How is it “easily the weakest” when it’s got the likes of Calado, Nasr, Bird, Dillman, Coletti, Leimer and until recently, Frijns?

      1. 2012 was generally viewed as the weakest GP2 field in it’s history. Calado, Leimer, Nasr, Dillman and Coletti where all in that field. Frijns (a future super star) as you say has left the series and only contested a few rounds in a start up team this season.

        Therefore the only strong inclusion this year is the return of Bird, but look at the talent and experience that left the series after last season e.g Valsecchi, Razia, Fillipi who contested the final couple of rounds, Van Der Garde who is now matching Pic at Caterham, Gutierezz who is now starting to match Hulkenberg at Sauber after a slow start and Chilton (who I don’t rate) also after a slow start is starting to reduce the gap to the highly rated Bianchi at Marrussia.

        So when you look at what left the series and what replaced it I clearly believe that the 2013 GP2 field is weaker than the 2012 one.

        Just my thought anyway.

  11. Off topic:
    I’m wondering if Santander can continue to sponsor Ferrari given the current economic climate in Spain.

    Horner confirmed that the talk he had with Alonso’s manager was about Alonso.

    Today I remembered how everything went with Kimi and when I look at the Spanish economy, everything seems to be possible.

    1. @verstappen Because banks are the ones with money, the ones who keep making money regardless of economic situation, hell, if they’re about to fall down, government will pull it back up with tax payers money. Also banks(/investors) are the reason for some of the greatest resessions we’ve had during the past century.

  12. That Morris Hamilton interview was an excellent watch, especially where he’s explaining about his ride round Yas Marina in a two seater F1 type car and the violence on the curbs and things, absolutely fascinating.

  13. Michael Brown (@)
    6th August 2013, 16:51

    That situation at the Hungaroring is completely unfair. When I went to this year’s Canadian Grand Prix you were allowed to bring coolers, as long as they didn’t have wheels on them.

  14. “Which drivers and teams are you supporting?”
    Yes, but . . .
    I think there ought to a “None-of-the-above” option for supporting both drivers and teams. I’m not a fan of any team or driver in particular – I just love the racing, the tracks, the politics and gossip.
    I did think about selecting all the teams and all the drivers, but I realised that could get rather silly.

    1. +1
      Its the thrill of the sport that attracts me and is the only reason I watch the sport. Yes, the top drivers i.e. Hamilton, Vettel, Alonso, Kimi contribute a lot to the excitement but i would be as excited to see a Marussia and Caterham battle for the 10th position. Not a fan of the politics though(I believe the sport should be clean) but love the gossips, specially the end of the season driver transfer!!

Comments are closed.