F1 politics almost drove me out in 2002 – Newey

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Red Bull chief technical officer Adrian Newey reveals he came close to quitting the sport in 2002.


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

Q&A with Red Bull’s Adrian Newey (F1)

“Probably the closest I came to stopping in Formula One was around 2002. There seemed to be so much politics – Ferrari and the FIA – that it was quite a difficult time.”

Hamilton sets ’14 title target (Sky)

“For everyone and for me the target is to win the world championship, both championships.”

Marussia must wait for big pay day (Autosport)

“Next season’s battle between Caterham and Marussia will have an extra edge, because they will be fighting over tens of millions of dollars.”

The end of an era in Formula 1 (MotorSport)

“The uneasy bit on Sunday was the number of drivers who didn’t know whether they would be walking into a F1 paddock again.”

F1: Five ways to revitalise Formula One following a fourth straight title for Sebastian Vettel (The Independent)

Four sensible suggestions (ignoring the praise for the wretched DRS) but I still don’t believe a budget cap is realistic.

2013 Silverstone Media Awards (Facebook)

“We invite you the fans to vote for your favourite F1 and Moto GP media coverage during 2013.”


Comment of the day

How badly does F1 need Ferrari to stay in the sport?

Would F1 without Ferrari actually be that bad? Personally Ferrari are certainly not the reason I still tune in on every race day.

Think the credibility of F1 as a sport would be greatly increased if the power and financial terms were more equally distributed among all the teams.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Goldenboy, Lucas “Mr. Veloce” and L_A_Munro!

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

Giancarlo Baghetti died 18 years ago today. His claim to fame in F1 was to be the first and so far only driver to win his maiden grand prix (with the exception of Giuseppe Farina in the first world championship race).

Despite his surprise win in the 1961 French Grand Prix Baghetti never started a full season in F1 and never finished on the podium again. His last F1 start was in 1967 and he sadly succumbed to cancer in 1995 at the age of 60.

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.

68 comments on “F1 politics almost drove me out in 2002 – Newey”

  1. I wonder what the face of F1 might be like today if that had actually happened.

    1. Ferrari would be missed for a year or two. The Italians would miss them for a bit longer than that. It would probably not affect Ferrari car sales since F1 is not about selling cars, rally and touring cars sell cars.

      1. Discrediting Ferrari as championship-winning material is shortsighted but true for some time now, but ignoring Ferrari’s influence in what makes F1 so popular is downright stupid. You think its a coincidence that all memorable eras of F1 had very strong Ferrari presence? The only man that showed the world there is life after Ferrari in F1 was Senna and even him wasn’t alone, there was his arch-nemesis Prost.
        F1 doesn’t need Newey to be popular or any other highly effective individual who’s has no personality outside his drawing board, and definately not someone who suggests that F1 is political when he loses badly and the fact that his rivals’ advantage early in the season in tyre management was only down to luck…

        1. Are you talking to me or Newey? I am not discrediting Ferrari. Times change. Ferrari may have been there from the beginning but we have seen lots of car makers and others enter and leave the sport. F1 still goes on, as it should.

          1. The first paragraph is for you suggesting that “Ferrari would be missed for a year or two..”
            The second is my opinion about Newey’s comments. It’s the most hypocritical ******** I’ve heard for a while.
            I mean I had a lot of respect for Mr. Newey but his latest remarks makes him all the more annoying. First it was Marko then along came Vettel and now Newey? come on! RBR’s PR guys must be very busy. At least Christian Horner is still sensible and likable…

        2. I was born in 1984 and my interest in Formula 1 is a thing of first half of 1990s and back then Ferrari was, for people of my generation, a struggling F1 team. Back in 1990s it was Williams and McLaren and Ferrari was just an occasional winner in our eyes, it was Michael Schumacher who brought Ferrari back to glory days and then we (my generation) finally realized how big Ferrari was. When Mansel left F1 Schumacher became my fave and I didn’t like his move to Ferrari because the red cars were used to suck (sorry Alesi).

          1. @jcost
            I was big Williams fan and i was so happy that this “horrible” person MSC went to team where he can’t win after he denied Damon Hill the title. But by 1999 i was one of the biggest MSC fans. I just couldn’t ignore his greatness anymore.

          2. @vasschu

            I do like MSC but I can’t deny some of his questionable moves but he’s from a different generation, not long before him Senna was used ti be very dirty.

      2. Not even rallies sell cars, WRC cars are just racing cars with a production car shell over them. Sweet days of group A and group B are gone.

  2. Interesting Newey mentions the MP4-19 A and not the MP4-18, which really was a massive flop.

    On that, I remember back then it was called a “revolutionary” car, the MP4-18. What was so special about it? I wasn’t into too much technical stuff back then… All I rememeber is that it kept failing the crash tests…

    1. I always feel that Neweys is being honest when he goes on an talk about F1 but often he does refrain from the whole scenario, not that he isn’t right as that I’m not capable of answering, all I can say is that he is on the right side of the fence.

    2. On that, I remember back then it was called a “revolutionary” car, the MP4-18. What was so special about it?

      It was lighter, Smaller & had extremely tight packaging which made it extremely aerodynamically efficient.
      However what made it revolutionary also proved its downfall as it kept failing crash test’s & the tight packaging also hindered cooling & they had a couple engine/gearbox failures caused by overheating.

      The nose was much lower/narrower than anything else on the grid, However it was the sidepods & especially the bodywork at the back around the gearbox which stood out.
      If you look at an image of the rear bodywork, Its very tight around the gearbox compared to the cars of the day, It actually looks a lot more like what has become commonplace the past 3-4 years.

      Interestingly the exhaust was also lower than others, Again closer to what we have seen the past few years. Most the others had the exhaust’s periscope out the top of the sidepod (Blowing onto the rear wing), The MP4-18 had the exhaust coming out the rear of the sidepod directing airflow onto the diffuser as well as the rear wing.

      1. As far as I can tell McLaren never raced a car designated MP4-18. Model numbers went from MP4-17 (2002) to MP4-17D (2003) to MP4-19 (2004) and then to MP4-19B (2004).

        1. That’s the point, the MP4-18 was their 2003 car which never raced due to problems which they failed to overcome. It was somewhat ironic that the MP4-17 which had been a spectacular failure up against the F2002 managed, in its modified incarnation the MP4-17D, to take the title down to the wire.

          It’s like the mirror image of 2012/13 in which McLaren ditched their proven winner, rather than develop it, in favour of a revolutionary new car.

      2. I believe some iterations of the 18 had the exhaust blowing inside of the diffuser. This made the car 1. very hard to drive and 2. prone to catching fire. The failure of this car led to Dennis showing Newey the door. Newey’s perfection of this idea—blowing the diffusier inside and out, ironically, is a big part of RBR’s dominance over the past few years.

    3. It was the carbon layups and bonding techniques which were revolutionary. Also, the cooling equipment was so marginal and tiny. If you look at the engine cover on the 18 (which houses a 3 litre V10) it is comparable in size to a modern engine cover used to house a 2.4L V8. It was a great bit of kit but too fragile. It was never really going to race, it was a test hack. Newey was trying to create a step change in design techniques and did so by creating lots of problems to solve. They got it almost right a couple of years later.

  3. Lewis, every driver and team want to win both titles. Even Marissa and Caterham have that dream. The more time you spend talking about it the less time you have to get ready. Do what Vettel does, harass your engineers everyday and sleep next to your car every night. I would not be surprised if Vettel is sleeping on the factory floor next to the empty chassis right now.

    1. I would not be surprised if Vettel is sleeping on the factory floor next to the empty chassis right now.

      Ha! I love that image. :-)

      1. Yep, is a funny image.

        I think this year has serve to open Lewis´e eyes in some way. The fact that Nico was so close, and sometimes ahead, of him must have teach him that he is not the unvitable driver he thought he was. (FWIW all drivers have a huge ego).

        Also in the fact that e admited that he never found the “sweet spot” of the car, speak about him needing to learn to work closer with the team to find new solutions.

        And finaly more emotional stable. Lewis is a hearth in the hand guy and he can control his emotion.

        1. @celeste didn’t that happen in 2011 too? and to some extent, in 2010 and 2012 too. At times, JB got the better of him and he had no way to respond to it.

          Maybe it’s the Pirelli tyres – MW suggested about Lewis struggling with them too, but sometimes it just feels as if he’s just not focused enough, or he just drops to the ground trying to get over problems. When things go right, he can be the fastest, but if he’s on the backfoot, he seems to struggle, lately.

          He’s the bad sort of the emotionally-driven kind of guy. He’s up and down with his mood and it shows.

          1. @fer-no65 But the think it Webber was an “old dog”, you know? he have it hard to adapt his style to the Pirelli tyres because he didn´t wanted to learn “new tricks” at his age

            You would think that a “young guy” like Lewis who has been good in must of categories will be able to “addapt” to the new tyres.

            Anyway it seem that Pirelli will be here for at least 4 mores years, if you believe the rumors, so even if Mercedes have a super engine if Lewis can´t work with the tyres this will be another very long 4 years

          2. think=thing

        2. @celeste

          The fact that Nico was so close, and sometimes ahead, of him must have teach him that he is not the unvitable driver he thought he was.

          It’s these quotes from seasoned fans, as well as pundits that just confuse me so much. We know things are rarely black or white in F1 (not like that, gimme a break! haha). But pundits and commenters keep saying how amazing it is rosberg beat Hamilton in X races, and had 2 wins to Hamilton’s 1. Using just the tiniest amount of logic, I would say it’s standard to be beaten by your teammate of the same age, who has been driving the W01, W02, W03, and had 3-4 yrs in the simulator developing the car to his needs.

          Cars aren’t just things you get in and drive your absolute fastest immediately. This actually leads on to another and much much more important issue of young/pay drivers. Fair enough we have very little testing now, but how exactly are we supposed to give the new drivers a chance, if they quite literally never drive a car that they’ve had a hand in developing, but are expected to deliver solid races week in week out. Something needs to be done.

          But back to the case in hand, yeah, I see no fuss here. Hamilton beat Rosberg in his first season, using a car he said he couldn’t dial in 100% which isn’t surprising in a first season. But if he can match Rosberg closely and beat him in his first year driving Rosberg’s car… My lord, I can only see the gap between the two increasing as Hamilton develops the W05 a tad more to his liking, and then the W06 even more etc etc

          1. I think that this year’s Vettel was specially hard on Hamilton. Much has been said about Alonso’s elusive third title, but the man’s already started his psychological warfare offseason, Alonso’s looking forward for another shot at winning the title, whereas Hamilton looks lost, he’s supposed to be an all-out qualifier, a rainmaster, and ever since Vettel clinched this WDC, he’s been neither.

            For the sake of F1, he better take some great vacations, because next year everybody is upping their game, Vettel included.

          2. Hamilton has had some of the best cars for the past five years but since 2008 he could not finish higher than fourth in the championship, so I do not see him improving.

          3. Wasn’t the 2010 Mclaren built around Lewis but Jenson went straight in and won the Aussie Gp, yes his very first race for Mclaren

          4. @timi I can’t say I have observed the same thing as you with your suggestion that pundits and commentators ‘keep saying how amazing it is that NR beat LH…’ etc etc. I don’t think anyone was, nor should be, surprised at NR’s competitiveness.

            And sure he has been on the team for a while…so have other drivers with their teams and cars too and fared worse in spite of that, and it doesn’t mean the tires didn’t cause everyone but SV great grief this year, so it’s not like this was just a ‘normal’ year where everyone simply should have just progressed a notch with their cars.

            And next year the cars will be wholly different, so I don’t think you can argue that LH will only be that much better than NR given another year under his belt on the team. Sure it could happen, but the car might suit NR better than LH, or the same, and the car might be the one to beat, or it might still have issues and be a 2nd or 3rd place car again…we don’t know. What I do suspect is that NR and LH will be close again, wherever their car sits in the WCC race.

            In other words, I think you have to allow NR the same chance to evolve further next year that you are affording LH. Why is NR to stand still while LH improves, in your scenario?

    2. I would not be surprised if Vettel is sleeping on the factory floor next to the empty chassis right now.

      Prepare to be surprised .
      I seriously want Lewis to be unbeatable next year . He needs to work on a few things but I think it is possible.

      1. Many years ago I thought I was going to be fed up with multi world champion Lewis Hamilton. Didn’t happen. He could be multi world champion if he puts the work in, but a I would be surprised if he does.

        1. I did not expect Lewis to be sitting in a single WDC in 2013 or Alonso spending 7 years without a title to add to his other two titles…

          If Mercedes builds a quick and consistent car and manages to improve it over the season both Lewis and Nico have what it takes to win WDC. The man can qualify second to nobody and he can race as well so I don’t see anything wrong in his target, actually Mercedes has been saying this for 2 years.

        2. I don’t know but everyone seems to forget that Vettel happened. Alonso and Ham could both have more titles right now, but Vettel simply outclassed them. Because he’s fast and most of all consistent. Which the other two haven’t been.

          1. I wouldn’t say that he simply outclassed them. He also had the best car (which isn’t to say he isn’t brilliant and didn’t deserve every championship, just that other drivers were as good or better in 2010 and 2012). But nobody is forgetting that anyway. They’re just saying what they thought would happen and would like to see.

          2. @matt90
            Exactly ! Glad that atleast someone gets the point I am making. I want him to win, that’s all and I think it is possible .

    3. Gordito Huevon
      29th November 2013, 1:50

      Hamilton is a good driver, not yet a great driver – in my opinion. He has been fortunate to have great support though and that is what makes him good. 90% of the drivers on the grid and testers would have same results with the type of support he has had – again my opinion.

  4. I like how the independent article states DRS restored slipstreaming as though the aerodynamic laws governing slipstreaming apparently just disappeared one season. What it actually does is compensate for any understeer in the corners by creating a super-slipstream on the straights. But it still doesn’t alleviate the problem of close cornering, and additionally robs us of the chance of any legitimate overtaking on the straights. I miss the art of defensive driving. :(

    1. Finally I will have a say on DRS. It works if it is DRS or the tires. You shouldn’t have both. DRS with the same tires keeps it close. New tires vs old tires still works. DRS with new tires vs old tires makes overtaking too easy, no real fight on the track.

  5. The “five ways to revitalize Formula One” are vague, to say the least. “Make F1 less elitist”? “Humanize the racing”? OK, but how? Those are hardly ways to achieve an objective, they are objectives themselves. Why not reduce the list to just one item? “One way to revitalize Formula One: 1) Revitalize Formula One”.

    The only slightly specific suggestion is to reduce the influence of aerodynamics, although they still don’t suggest how to do it.

    1. You must have only read the headings. To take your two:
      1) “Make F1 less elitist” = “lower ticket prices so more people can afford to go”
      2) “Humanise the racing” = “encourage/permit drivers to speak frankly instead of regurgitate PR spin”
      3) “Introduce a budget cap” = er … “introduce a budget cap”. (People familiar with a salary cap in certain sports will see this as specific enough.)
      4) “Take less, invest more” = “getting CVC to plough more profits into promotion and scholarships”

      1. I did read the entire thing, but it doesn’t say anything meaningful, in my opinion.

        Making the drivers speak more freely? No one is limiting them, they can say whatever they want. In fact, I think they speak pretty frankly most of the time. I’ve seen amusing tweets, Nico’s videos speaking like a regular guy, informal interviews and so on. They do represent a team and sponsors, and they’re on the media spotlight, so some PR is to be expected.

        Lower ticket prices? I don’t think anyone needs to tell the GP organisers how they should price their tickets, it’s supposed to be the market deciding that. If tracks aren’t full, it’s because they race in places like Bahrain. Tracks in places with a racing tradition are usually full. I doubt that the price of tickets is a major problem for F1 at the moment.

        I don’t know how they would enforce a budget cap. And even if they could, I don’t think that’s the way things should be done.

        The CVC thing, I don’t know enough details to give an informed opinion. I’ll give the benefit of the doubt on that one.

      2. Their budget cap comment is also nonsense – they suggest that Vettel had an easy ride against an uneven playing field, despite the fact that the second and third placed drivers were in similarly well-funded teams (as were most of the top 10 drivers).

        Also, whilst a budget cap would be good for the sport overall the practicalities are much more complex than suggested and Forensic Accountancy has got nothing to do with it (the issue isn’t finding out what happened but agreeing exactly how hard-to-value arrangements are counted towards the cap which is a subjective issue much like the transfer-pricing issue in international tax arrangements).

  6. I’d love it if Newey just decided one day he wanted a new challenge and bought a stake in Marussia or Caterham… or maybe got together with that other long-term genius and formed a Newey-Brawn team from scratch.

    Would be beautiful.

  7. “Probably the closest I came to stopping in Formula One was around 2002. There seemed to be so much politics – Ferrari and the FIA – that it was quite a difficult time.”

    Funny Newey mentions that, because the team he currently works for, Red Bull, are at least as political as Ferrari were back then. Although Mercedes seem to be catching them up recently.

    1. @kingshark Did you read Luca di Montezemolo article

      “We have reached an agreement with Ecclestone and the FIA and we are the only team with the right of veto: more political weight than that is impossible,”

      I will said Ferrari still wins in the political department

      1. @celeste
        Yeah, but the problem is that Domenicali is too much of a nice guy to use his political power to efficient effect, Horner and Brawn are a lot more ruthless in that respect.

        Ferrari have the most power but they don’t use it. Red Bull, and recently Mercedes, might not have as much power as Ferrari, but they use it to great affect.

        1. @kingshark oh please “is too much of a nice guy”, you are violin away to made me cry … If LdM is asking for that power is because he wants to used it, he is just waiting for the right time…

    2. I agree, his comments sound a bit hypocritical, but I’m sure that he would prefer that every team had the same chances to win, same resources, no vetoes, less regulations, etc.
      In the end he’s just an engineer trying to do his job, but as ever in F1 everyone gets caught up in the politics of it sooner or later.

    3. Indeed! When others benefit, it is ‘politics’. When you do it, its not.

      Not to say that Red Bull are where they are only because of politics. They have the best of everything – the driver, the designer and the politics behind the scenes.

      Just like Ferrari had mastered all three aspects during their unbeaten run.

    4. Red Bull aren’t political.

      Ferrari are political. When they don’t like the way things are going, they put pressure on the FIA.

      When Red Bull don’t like the way things are going, they go to the media. Look at the way they handled the tyre situation this year. Instead of approching the FIA about the issue, the drivers would get out of the car, go to the nearest camera, and moan about it for ten minutes. Once it became an issue that the fans started paying attention to, Red Bull started echoing the public’s sentiments, essentially turning it into a cycle. If they went to the FIA, it was only once they got everyone riled up about it. Never mind that they were winning – they weren’t winning as easily as they would have liked.

      It kind of reminds me of a notorious strike on the Melbourne waterfronts back in the 1990s. The Maritime Workers’ Union went on strike over working conditions. They made themselves out to be victims of corporate greed, sold down the river by an uncaring and unsympathetic bunch of suits who would happily replace hundreds of decent and honest and hardworking stevedores without the slightest hesitation if it meant a few more dollars’ profit. It then came to light that the stevedores were refusing to work until the company paid to have their pool table reupholstered.

      So if Ferrari are political, Red Bull have a union mentality.

      1. So if Ferrari are political, Red Bull have a union mentality


        Red Bull knows the power of media.

      2. Red Bull using the media to get their way with the powers that be still sounds incredibly political to me, just in a very different way to Ferrari.

      3. While I do believe what @prisoner-monkeys is saying regarding the political difference between Red Bull and Ferrari, I also doubt that RBR only went to the media over the tire issue, while Ferrari went to the FIA. Sure RBR plays the media game, but that doesn’t exclude them from also raising their concerns with the FIA, and I’d be awfully surprised if they didn’t, well before going to the media. Especially knowing the kind of weight Ferrari has, I can’t imagine Horner not also asserting himself in the issue with the FIA. They certainly pressured the FIA over the Pirelli/Mercedes tire test.

    5. I guess he learned that its important to be on the right side of the politics @kingshark.
      Not to mention that its more diverse now, with Ferrari and their Veto vs. Red Bull and endless pockets + newey and being the dominant force with Powerhouse Mercedes who cannot easily be missed (who would supply 1/3rd of the grid) either, instead of having super powerfull Ferrari, with their test track, more money than anyone, Brawn, Byrne, Schumi AND the attention/goodwill of Bernie and the FIA at that time

      1. Red bull GmBH has twice the revenue and net income of ferrari SpA on average. Owner of RB Dietrich Mateschitz could in fact buy-out ferrari with his own money if he so pleased. Montezemolo is nothing but a puppet compared to him.

      2. I say it’s only a matter of time before RB becomes the ultimate powerhouse of F1.

        1. @juzh
          They already are, and have been since 2010.

          I’d say that it is only a matter of time before Mercedes surpass Red Bull as the ultimate powerhouse of F1.

          Plus, Red Bull generated €4.25 billion in 2012, Mercedes generated 8.8 billion. Dietrich Mateschitz is in fact a puppet compared to Dieter Zetsche. ;-P

          1. Dieter Zetsche is chairman of mercedes. dietrich is owner of RB. Big difference. Mateschitz net worth is 7.1 billion. Zetche around 100 milion.
            Merc is a bigger company no doubt, but somehow I can’t see their influence rise in F1 for the foreseeable future. A look on F1’s financial report does not suggest it. RB and ferrari have by fore the most lucrative contracts with bernie.

  8. Newey won both championships for Redbull this year he is the real champion of the team!!!

    1. Peter Prodromu won both championship, not Newey.

  9. If next years Mercedes isn’t championship contendingly quick, it will be the biggest flop ever, just because they have been talking about it for so long. Next year is a massive year for them, and if it doesn’t come off I worry about the long term stability of Mercedes in Formula 1. ’14 is the one they are supposed to win, nothing else will do.

    1. I think many teams have claimed that winning next year, whatever the year may be, is the only option, only to find that it doesn’t work out, and they ultimately live to fight another day. I’d be surprised if not winning in year one of a new format in F1 will equate to Merc pulling out after 2014. I don’t get the sense that they have given themselves such a dire mandate, in spite of the talk that they could be the team to beat. That kind of talk has never meant a guarantee, nor a cakewalk, and they have to compete yet in all the races next year, with all the variables that are unknown and are guaranteed to happen, before we will know anything definite.

      Besides, at a minimum, Mercedes will have engine contracts to fulfill, no? ie. can they even pull out of F1 for a while yet at this stage?

  10. Wow, my first comment of the day! :)
    Seriously though, I really hope that we soon see come changes in the way F1 is run. Maybe the end of Bernies regime will give us the chance…

    1. I’d be surprised if that were the case. CVH are certainly going to want someone cast from the same mold, and I don’t see any particular will from the teams collectively to try and influence change, as they’re all too busy looking after their own interests. His successor will likely be a less controversial figure, but I doubt there will be any desire to change a format which makes those in charge as rich as kings..

  11. Very glad that Adrian Newey has joined the party now and showed some bravery to talk about what happened 11 years ago, first he said that Ferrari were lucky about the tyres & now he is blaming them for his failures in those years (sour grapes), the fact that back in the early 00’s Rory Byrne cars were the benchmark & Newey has produced cars like the MP4-18 that couldn’t even pass the required crash tests which pushed Ron Dennis to recruit Mike Couglan from the arrows if i’m not wrong & promoted him next to Newey in the design department.
    I don’t know if it is him or he’s following his team PR policy but in the end those comments are classless knowing that his team is doing exactly what Ferrari were doing in the early 00’s

    1. Yep and many could argue that Newey cars have only starting winning since Rory went home.

  12. Politics have always been part of F1. It is more pronounced now since it has been so difficult to get everyone signed up to a new Concorde Agreement, not to mention the persistent efforts of Newey’s own employer in torpedoing any efforts to control the costs of competing in the sport. There have been other political upheavals in the sport, such as the FISA/FOCA “war” of the early 80s, and doubtless there will be more in the future. When there is so much money involved, power politics are inevitable. Those aspects don’t interest me so much.

    Where it crosses a line for me is when politics threaten the sporting integrity of the competition, such as we saw this year with mid-season changes to tyres. There will be those who will argue that they were necessary on safety grounds, but I would argue that though some changes were clearly needed, the specific changes that were chosen impacted unnecessarily on the playing field, giving some teams an advantage over others. I don’t think it’s too much of a leap to suggest that however much the rules change from year to year, they should remain stable throughout a season. That makes sense both on sporting and cost grounds. It is also unfortunate that those teams that benefited most from those changes were also the ones who had made the most noise in the media about the tyres previously – not on safety grounds, but on the grounds that they didn’t work well with their car.

    1. Mid-season changes to tires such as we saw this year are of course unusual, and I blame FIA/F1 for meddling with such gadgety tires to begin with by mandating that Pirelli make them. The fact that FIA/F1 also mandates limited testing only compounded things.

      The politics could have been avoided with proper tires we all know many makers could have made easily. Changing them mid-season was always going to harm some and favour others, which is why Pirelli took great pains to point out this was what they wished to avoid, whenever they talked of the possibility of having to do something about the tires mid-season.

      I don’t believe there was politicking going on to favour the most vocal team, because I don’t think F1 wanted another RBR cakewalk. The very point of the bad tires and DRS was to promote the possibility of other teams being able to do something about RBR or any team running away with it, and to shake up the usual order of things during the races as well as for the Championships. The tires were to keep us guessing and the DRS was to prevent processions, and neither did that.

  13. Johnnie parsons also won his first world championship grand prix: 1950 indy 500

  14. Gordito Huevon
    29th November 2013, 2:06

    Lower ticket prices, doesn’t sound like a thorough understanding of F1 (or marketing) if the thinking is lowering ticket prices would revitalize the business. What is it about F1 that needs revitalized anyway? Sounds like a tack NASCAR might take though. Two different entertainment venues, two very different clientele.

    If you can’t afford to head out to the races in your Falcon 10 then stay home and watch it on TV.

Comments are closed.