Double points finale could be scrapped – Todt

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: FIA president Jean Tost says the unpopular double points rule could be scrapped given unanimous agreement from the teams.


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

Todt hints at double points rethink (Autosport)

“I was surprised to get so much emotion for this thing that I do not feel is a huge change in F1. But again we need to listen to that and hopefully we will take that into consideration.”

Bernie Ecclestone Plans Online Push to Boost Formula One Income (Bloomberg)

“Formula One plans to bolster its online content as early as June after officials at Ferrari SpA and Williams Grand Prix Holdings Plc’s (WGF1) teams called the racing series’ media strategy outdated.”

‘Appeal case stronger since Melbourne’ (ESPN)

“As more races have progressed, issue have become more evident and issues and understanding has come to light. Hopefully we can present our case fairly and get the second place back that Daniel [Ricciardo] deserves from Melbourne.”

Ericsson losing half a second in weight to F1 team mate (Crash)

“The problem is that he’s 10kg lighter than me, so for me to be able to match his times is so difficult because I have half a second every lap which I’m losing just because of the weight.”

Horner claims Ricciardo is among the best after youngster enjoys fine start at Red Bull (Daily Mail)

“It demonstrates how difficult it is sometimes to judge drivers in inferior equipment because he has grabbed his opportunity and he is really making the most of it.”

Mercedes driver duel has hidden depths (Reuters)

Lewis Hamilton: “Someone in the team did a huge study on my pace last week and, as I arrived (in Bahrain)…there was this big document with all the reasons why I was quick. And he (Rosberg) used that to his advantage.”

BMW ready to come back in Formula 1 (Minardi)

Gian Carlo Minardi: “German rumour has it that a BMW Board of Directors has been fixed for the month of May to consider a coming back in F1 already for 2015.”

The First Time – with Caterham’s Kamui Kobayashi (F1)

“What was the first thing you did after getting your first seat in F1?
KK: I got on a plane! I was in Japan and had a call from Toyota to say Timo (Glock) may have to pull out of the Brazilian Grand Prix, so I had to fly to Sao Paulo as quickly as possible!”

1989 Ferrari F1-89 Formula One (RM Auctions)

Ex-Nigel Mansell and Gerhard Berger Ferrari for sale.


Comment of the day

Ross on F1’s mixed messages in Bahrain:

Changing the formula to one based on improving energy efficiency and then erecting 495 lights rather than race in the daylight seems a little backwards to me.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Aniket Garg!

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

Mika Hakkinen won the Brazilian Grand Prix 15 years ago today despite being delayed by a gearbox glitch early in the race.

Michael Schumacher took second ahead of Heinz-Harald Frentzen – the latter finishing a lap down and running out of fuel on the final lap.

Image © Red Bull/Getty

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.

144 comments on “Double points finale could be scrapped – Todt”

  1. T-they… they’re finally listening? R-really? I-i-i… cannot-

    No, must wait until it actually gets cancelled… can’t get my infinitely tiny hopes up yet…

    1. That’s how I feel – they need to stop leaving us in limbo and tell us either way what’s happening!

    2. What’s amazing is that Jean Todt was surprised by the strength of feeling from the fans on the double points debacle. It says two things: firstly, that the top echelons of F1 are completely out of touch with fans and yet didn’t bother carrying out any sort of market research to see whether the changes they were making would get the desired result; and secondly, that the top echelons of F1 (including the teams it would appear) can’t tell or do not care that a rule may have an arbitrary or unfair impact on the championship, despite the fact that legions of fans could see this straight off.

      1. @dirgegirl spot on.

        F1 management is very poor. They need to engage more with fans and see what other sports are doing to improve their interaction with its end-user.

    3. Fingers crossed!

    4. petebaldwin (@)
      11th April 2014, 10:22

      @crekkan – Red Bull and Ferrari will vote against it. They wouldn’t go with what the fans want, they’ll go with what is best for them.

  2. The way this is going double points in the finale is absolute by the Mercedes got the top 2 places…

    1. Actually I can just picture Lewis having a decent edge on Nico all season, only to lose the championship to him because of technical problem in the finale where it counts the most.

      1. This is where FOM just isn’t seeing the forest through the trees. They seem to think double points is only capable of being good because it could help an underdog beat a dominant car or whatever, but for a driver to loose a championship because of the points change in the situation you describe would make a total farce of the championship result and forever remain in the series history as a stain against real competition.

        It’s the same thing as where in 2010 people suggested Alonso would only be a true champion if he won by 8 points of more (because of Hockenheim).

        I dunno, maybe some people do not care so much as the rules are the same for everyone, but the points structure absolutely must remain a constant across all races to maintain an equal playing field in my opinion. Otherwise you could literally luck into a championship due to another cars unfortunate mechanical failure that on any other weekend would not have had the same effect as it did in the last race.

  3. Despite being anything but trustworthy, I’d love that BMW rumor to be true. One of the things I looked forward to the most was the return of plenty of manufacturers, because with only three (and one of them waaaay ahead of the rest), F1 is starting to look like a spec series. Another reason to soften a bit the development freezing, even though I totally agree with it.

    1. @carlitox I would love for BMW to return to the sport as well, but there’s zero chance they will return in 2015, as Minardi would have us believe. Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault have spent at least 3 years preparing for these regulations, Honda 2 years and BMW are supposed to start R&D and manufacture the PU all within 6 months….right.

      1. Unless they buy existing team.

        1. Red Bull threatening to leave and all…

        2. That wouldn’t help them a bit with regards to engines though @rocky, which I would suppose is to be the BMW part of it, right

    2. BMW is alright, but I would really like to see Ford (Cosworth) come back. There was a rumour recently on them coming in with one of the new teams… Cosworth have a turbo engine design, but haven’t built it as there is no customer team. To have the 5 biggest engine names throughout F1 history (Ferrari, Ford, Renault, Mercedes and Honda) on the grid would be fantastic. We don’t need any more than that!

      1. @fastiesty I’d love to see Toyota back and Audi should have a say in this new hybrid era. A Formula 1 with Mercedes, Renault, Ferrari, Honda, Toyota, BMW and Audi would be great. (Porshe would be welcomed but seems to me they’re more than happy staying away from F1 for now)

    3. @carlitox Worth noting it’s less than 12 months since BMW last denied rumours they would be coming back to F1 (rumours which last time were started by Ecclestone).

    4. @carlitox, starting a new rumor here, if BMW returns, i could see a team with Seb and Hulk or Rosb

      1. Vettel did have a link with BMW through Williams testing when they were engine partners and then of course Sauber.

        I’ve said in the past the only teams I could see Vettel leaving Red Bull for are Ferrari or a new or returning manufacturer team.

        I think in the unlikely event BMW return next season, they could be engine supplier to Red Bull if the Renault relationship continues to deteriorate. I don’t where that would leave Infiniti. It’s all pure speculation though.

    5. Hopefully just as an engine supplier, and to two teams, the whole reason we nearly had a sub 20-car grid was because the big car manufactueres were intereted in the glory of a title-winning in-house team. Now they may just be content, as was the case in the past,of being attatched to a title winning team as a partner, with less emphasis on corporate back-rubbing.

  4. Re: COTD – it’s just all PR to pull in manufacturers & about “road relevance”.

    Regarding “someone” putting together the necessary documents detailing why Lewis was so fast in Malaysia is very telling of what’s going on in the garage. But even more so that despite the help Nico got, Lewis still outdid him in Bahrain (racewise).

    1. I can name ten teams that aren’t Mercedes where they’re doing the same thing

      1. Yeah i think this whole data sharing thing is a non-story, probably the same at every race in every team, just usually there is no attention drawn to it.

        1. The story is when the opposite is true, wasn’t it the case that Schumi’s team mates do not get access to his performance and set-up data?

      2. @raceprouk Lewis himself said it’s not something new, I think it’s mind games and he wanted to show the world that Nico Rosberg we saw in Bahrain was a good studend of “Lewis Hamilton Race Book”…

    2. Isn’t every team supposed to be doing that?
      As far as I remember, Lewis was studying all of Fernando’s data and suggestions, until Fernando got in an open war with Ron, when things started to get really alienating between garages.

      But you’ll agree, McLaren 2007 is not how the regular team dynamics look.

      1. I remember reading that Fernando kept all his setups secret from mid-season onwards..

      2. The week before Hamilton said (in his website, I guess) that nobody ever set-up his car but himself…

  5. I was surprised to get so much emotion for this thing that I do not feel is a huge change in F1.

    If you’re that out of touch- both by being surprised and by still thinking it’s a minor thing- then you probably shouldn’t be in charge. Even Mosely didn’t allow such foolishness into F1.

    1. Todt used to run Ferrari; was he ever in touch? :-)

      1. With FIA? Yes he was

  6. Andre Furtado
    11th April 2014, 0:27

    Everyone is making such a big deal out of Ricciardo, let’s see he is on an exceptionally good car which only lacks power, Vettel has had issues on both races so far and has been nothing but a team player and allowed him to easily pass him. Ricciardo is a guy who did not beat his toro rosso team mate that often and many argued that maybe Jean Eric might have been a better option for red bull. Who is to say that Jean Eric wouldn’t be doing an even better job at the red bull? Hulk? Just saying too much hype with no backing up. More drivers on the grid deserve this attention.

    1. GB (@bgp001ruled)
      11th April 2014, 1:21

      you are totally wrong! ric is doing a great job! he is in an amazing car: yes so was webber and was always wiped by vettel. true: vettels has been having problems. but to me ric is doing a great job compared to the whole midfield, not to vettel. jev could have made it better? noone will ever now, cuz it didnt happen and noone cares: ric was chosen and he is doing a fine job, so if jev was an option or not is not a question anymore. ric deserves the recognition he is getting!

    2. C’mon!

      1. JEV is a good driver and I would not be shocked if Red Bull picked him over Ricciardo, but you cannot deny that Daniel Ricciard is doing a pretty decent job and, unlike some predictions, is not being destroyed by a 4 times WDC.

      2. Nico Hulkenberg is top driver and would be a championship contender if he was driving a car capable of fighting for wins more often than not.

    3. More drivers on the grid deserve this attention.

      Please do name some of these drivers – Guttierez, Massa, Sutil, Button???

      1. @todfod Guttierez and Sutil in the same list as Button, you clearly know your F1 drivers……

    4. petebaldwin (@)
      11th April 2014, 11:41

      “Ricciardo is a guy who did not beat his toro rosso team mate that often”

      Don’t let facts get in the way of a good rant eh? Ricciardo beat Vergne 23-16 over 2 years. That means he beat him 70% of the time.

      “Who is to say that Jean Eric wouldn’t be doing an even better job at the red bull?”

      No-one. People are simply saying Ricciardo is doing a good job at Red Bull.

      “More drivers on the grid deserve this attention.”

      As someone else said – who?

      “Vettel has had issues on both races so far”

      Ok so there have been 3 races so far. Australia, Malaysia and Bahrain….. I assume it was Malaysia you missed as Vettel finished in 3rd. Ricciardo retired with an issue having also suffered a penalty because his tyre wasn’t put on correcty in the pits. Ricciardo also got a 10 place grid penalty for Bahrain and still finished ahead of Vettel.

      I don’t understand your motivation behind having a go at Ricciardo (JEV fan?) but how can anyone say he isn’t doing a good job in his early days as Red Bull driver? Were you expecting more?

      1. Excellent post

      2. I agree with all your sentiments just not your maths, if Ricciardo won 23-16 thats 23 from 39 which is 59%

      3. @petebaldwin

        RIC is doing a great job and I imagine he’ll continue to do so. More than doing a great job, he’s just plain racy in a fun way. Definitely a breath of fresh air at the sharper end of the grid, and at Red Bull.

        But it is also true that Vettel’s had issues. AUS obviously with his retirement, and in Bahrain he had an issue with his MGU-H failing to give him power at the end of the straights, comprising whatever little top speed the RB10 has. RIC has also mentioned needing to work to get caught up to VET, as when they do run on equal terms in Free Practices, VET is usually ahead a couple of tenths.

        It’s early days in the season in a season full of new tech. Both Red Bull drivers are doing well, and both are punching above the weight of their car. And if Renault can’t get an extra 80hp from their engine, and soon, it won’t really matter much as the Merc will be miles ahead and everyone else will be fighting for scraps. Still, some great racing going on.

  7. Why can’t people get it through their heads already. It’s not about F1 cars saving money and environment. It’s about developing a technology that, when used on a large scale, will have a monumental benefits.
    Humanity wouldn’t have seen any benefit from any monumental invention if it was just left in the inventor’s lab. But it sure did benefit when everyone started using it.

    1. Thank you!

    2. Apparently it’s far to abstract a concept for the average pre-schooler.

    3. Chris (@tophercheese21)
      11th April 2014, 6:43

      Comment of the year!

    4. F1 isn’t “developing” anything. These technologies exist for quite a while now and have been implemented in F1 to make PR people happy.
      F1 didn’t come up with this and then proved it was good to use for road cars, like sequential gearboxes or carbon fibre.

      It’s a load of pretentious bull**** for people who lost touch with what cars are actually sold nowadays. The wasted energy in Bahrain, the air-shows in Melbourne etc. are simply a pain to see for people who watch Formula 1 as a sport, instead of a large advertizing board for car manufacturers that want to hide their 3 ton SUVs behind green “hybrid” technology.

      1. Indeed.

        How could anyone believe that F1 is developing stuff when the engine is almost spec’d and they have an engine improvement freeze for 12 months, with only 12 days of testing at the beginning of each season allowed to test what they’ve done. How can you push the limits of technology when you only have time to take bits of already existing stuff, put them together and pray that you can get them working together in the limited amount of time that you have? And that’s without taking into consideration that the FIA greatly limited the innovation possibilities by limiting the flow-rate, the power output of the MGU-K, the amount of energy that can be released / lap.

        If they wanted truly relevant innovation, not just PR talk, the best way to achieve that would’ve been: 100kg fuel / race, 100kg/hr max fuel rate, max 5 engines / season. Any engine configuration, any mix of hybrid technology. Allow each engine supplier to push its limits on the area they consider relevant, don’t try to level everyone off to the same constraints. That’s simply wrong in my opinion.

      2. F1 isn’t “developing” anything

        Apart from cutting-edge advances in hybrid technology and fuel efficiency. There is no better environment than top-flight motorsport to push technology to the limit.

      3. You don’t need to invent a new type of light bulb to have “developed” something. The new engine’s have pushed the development of existing technology and as we have recently learned, Mercedes who have designed an ingenious new configuration of a turbo engine would not have been here without the new format.

        Fortunately for us (perhaps not for the environment) most of us live in a free world where it’s our choice if we prefer a three ton SUV or a Smart car. What F1 is pushing is the fact that the SUV no longer needs a six liter V8 but can do fine on a two liter turbo which including hybrid can reach 20km/l.

        Unless you want to dictate what people can drive that’s exactly what we need to do.

      4. Where else is the MGU-H used? @dennis

    5. Thanks man.

      Now night races are an environmental crime that kills the rationale of any attempt to strive for the development of greener and more advanced power generation engines…

  8. OmarR-Pepper (@)
    11th April 2014, 1:19

    Abu Dhabi organizers will be really annoyed, angry and scammed if they paid a whole lot of extra money for the season finale with double “emotion”. I still don’t buy it. See to believe.

    1. Exactly, it’s probably been paid for, which makes reneging on the rule unlikely.

      1. OmarR-Pepper (@)
        11th April 2014, 2:43

        So it’s just an attemp to settle down the angry fans (us)… It sounds plausible coming from FIA.

        1. most likely that Omar.

    2. The article doesn’t say specifically this year, so i presume they mean scrap it for future years, although it’s not very clear. I don’t see how they could scrap it this year, the teams who have scored a lot of points (Mercedes and maybe Force India) will likely vote against it so it would never go through.

      And regardless of how much most dislike the rule, i would rather they didn’t change rules mid-season (unless there is a safety issue or a clarification on some loophole). The teams will have already developed a strategy based on the double points race, which could include engine usage, focus of car design, or even the planned changeover of resources between this year and the 2015 car.

      1. @keithedin, Let’s just assume that you are right (most unlikely) and the teams have decided to save 1 engine and several aero upgrades for the last race, what happens if the double whammy last race extravaganza gets dropped ? what happens is the teams now become free to use those engines and updates when needed rather than saving them for 1 last race, there is no disadvantage there for anyone at this stage.

  9. If BMW gets back, it’s a round of applause to this new formula from every single point of view.

    1. Let’s not start clapping just yet.

  10. Dear Marcus Ericsson,

    I sympathise with your weight issue, if it is an issue at all. Perhaps that isnt the reason why you’re constantly slower than your teamate. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps, you’re just a bit…well…slower? Nico Hulkenberg, whose weight apparently “hulks” above the rest of grid, doesnt seem to have too much trouble getting on terms with his diminutive teamate.

    So, shut up and buck up!

    1. @jaymenon10, so just exactly what is the difference in carrying an extra 10 kg of fuel and carrying an extra 10 kg of flesh and bone? I think you need to take your own advice.

      1. Touche.. and on this topic, it sounds like someone at the FIA has received the message if they are considering to dump double points. Small steps in preparation for a possible big hurdle..

    2. The Force India is light enough to come under the weight limit with Hulk in it. So he only loses out on the amount of ballast to place.. possibly a tenth, like Webber had with Vettel. From Marcus’ statements it sounds like the Caterham is over the weight limit, like the Sauber. If anything, he needs the higher weight limit of next year, while Frijns I imagine is closer to Kobayashi’s weight, hence being a few tenths faster than Marcus in the recent test they did together.

    3. @jaymenon10 Who are you to judge or give criticism to Marcus Ericsson? After all, could you drive an F1 car to a miniscule percentage of the capability of him? No, and along with loads of other reasons which I couldn’t be bothered to post, comments like that have no basis whatsoever.

    4. If you read the interview, it said that both cars (Ericsson and Kobayashi) are over the weight limit. If Ericsson is 10KG heavier than Kobayashi, then he will carry 10KG more dead weight on his car. Like other have said, Sauber, or at least with Sutil, is probably over the weight limit. It’s the teams job to produce a better car, but while they’re doing that, Ericsson going to look much worse than it should compared to his team mate.

    5. Ok…got my hands up..bad comment….apologies to Marcus Ericsson.

  11. Ahh that Chilton post is hilarious on many levels, notably the lack of spelling. But it’s interesting that he would get more seat time in rFactor to go with the real British F3.. I guess most racing drivers now will have tried many sim options in their down time. I know Max uses sims a lot now in his driver development from what I recall seeing.

    “Max did you get it sorted?
    blackeagleuk on Apr-08-2010”

    Interesting to see that it’s based of the French mod for 2007 F3.. top 4 that year being Grosjean, Buemi, Hulkenberg and Kobayashi.. I should have explored rFactor a bit more, that sounds very interesting to drive. But I can understand Max having problems with it, I found it less cohesive as a package to sort out for things than in GPL.

    1. Makes you wonder why he used his real name, maybe he was showing off and thought people would help him more quickly, everyone should make a habit of searching properly before posting any questions, even F1 drivers!

      1. @mantresx Why shouldn’t he use his real name? All he was doing is ask for technical support.

        1. To avoid embarrassing tweets in the future hehe. But seriously he didn’t need to say he was a driver to get assistance, maybe to give the developers some feedback but not for this.

      2. jsw11984 (@jarred-walmsley)
        11th April 2014, 9:53

        @mantresx It was in 2010 long before he became an F1 driver, as Keith said why not use his real name

      3. I don’t think it’s showing off, more putting across some common ground. If you think about it, they could get useful feedback onthe mod from him as he has driven the actual car. The only showing off would be from us inferring that he can spend a few hundred thousand pounds (himself or via sponsors) to run the British F3 season!

        PS. I always try to post with my real name.. if you wouldn’t post something otherwise then why post it. I’m sure we’ve all been naive to “Google is your friend” when we were growing up too :)

  12. “Red Bull’s case getting stronger” Guess RedBull have taken their slogan literally because apparently Ricciardo was actually flying he wasn’t using fuel.

    1. Well he has proved he can be fast and competitive without exceeding the 100kgph limit.

      1. Too true.

      2. Actually, that could be incorrect. He has proven that he can be fast and competitive without the FIA-mandated fuel sensor recording a number in excess of 100. There’s an appeal pending, so could we please stick with “innocent until proven guilty”? (Although I really do dislike the idea that the technical directives can be abused, by both sides, to this extent.)

        1. @paul-a, well that is the crux of the matter isn’t it, whether or not the FIA mandated fuel sensor is accurate 100% of the time.

    2. Its pretty funny when the team mention that new issues make their case stronger, when we have seen reports that actually the issue could very well have at least something to do with modifications several teams make to their sensors to fit them into their cars differently.

  13. I prefer that they keep double points for this year. A change of rules would be wrong mid-season. Let’s see how double points work this year, and have the argument again next winter. Somehow i hope someone catches up to the Mercedes driver and takes home the WDC title just to show Tod & Co what they’ve actually done..

    1. I do like subtle humour. Umm you were joking, right?

    2. Sergey Martyn
      11th April 2014, 4:35

      Oh thank you, now I understand that the whole thing is just for proving something to Todt & co! All those years I was believing F1 is for pleasing the fans not the bosses.

      1. @hohum, no joke. I think almost any rule change mid-season is wrong. It inevitably gives an advantage to some, while hurting other teams. The tire change of last year was only acceptable because of safety. So i honestly think we should just live with it (double points) for this year and see how it all unfolds.

        1. Andy G (@toothpickbandit)
          11th April 2014, 12:28

          So if a rule at the start of the season was to give Red Bull a head-start of 25 points, you’d be against scrapping that mid-season?

          1. @toothpickbandit, you’re being ridiculous. But sure, whatever the teams and FIA agree on, they should stick with it through the season.

        2. Personally I think this rule should go and can easily be eradicated without affecting a darn thing other than in a positive way toward how people feel about F1 these days. It’s not like dropping it now would affect anything going forward. It’s not like teams have designed their cars around this or something. It needs to go.

        3. @me4me, this rule has not come into force yet so dropping it as fast as it was adopted merely restores the status quo.

  14. Well let’s see, double points being reconsidered (again), Bernie going to use the internet to provide promotion and profits for F1.

    So who says no-one in F1 reads the comments in F1 Fanatic and other blogs.

    1. Yeah, I’m surprised to hear it but I’m glad nevertheless to hear some engagement with online content at last. It’s interesting that it took Ferrari and Williams calling their strategy outdated to raise the issue. F1 also doesn’t really need the bad PR surrounding double points anymore that will inevitably rise near the occasion as well, and it’s increasingly looking like it’ll be a two horse race anyway. Can you imagine Senna vs. Prost with double points at the finale? There’ll be a huge backlash too if either driver loses the title via something like a ‘plastic tube fault’ like Lewis had at Melbourne. Reminds me of Arrows losing a first race win at Hungary from a 50p seal breaking.

  15. I was watching some amazing videos on the Moto GP YouTube channel and thought why doesn’t F1 has the same? i am please to hear that they are taking notice. A well run YouTube channel is a must these days.

    1. Yeah, I don’t understand they haven’t got a channel now. WEC, WRC and MotoGP all have very good and interesting channels. It’s a shame F1 is so behind in that matter.

      1. I can’t wait for dinosaur Bernie to leave the sport and someone professional and up-to-date to take over the management of the sport’s content. F1 is so so outdated in every aspect of it’s relationship with the fans, it’s embarrasing.

    2. With less video footage than on other sports sites such as the National Basketball Association’s, is less popular than other sports portals such as, about Egyptian soccer, and World Wrestling Entertainment, according to analytics company


      1. And yet hilarious in the extreme! Where are the claims of F1 being the most followed global sport per event now!

    3. F1’s behind-the-times digital presence is indicative of the larger issues with fan connectivity we see in the sport. When personality (specifically one personality) is running the show and thinks he’s right, what you get is what Bernie believes. We’ll have to see what any change to their online presence brings, but this feels very reactive to the fact they are so behind rather than driving innovation.

      I think they won’t get the branding and fan connectivity right until they have a more open management structure, where new ideas can be heard and there is an understanding that new ideas need to be tested to see how your customers will react.

    4. Shame they’ve crippled the web Live Timing but removing the sector times. The iPad app (costing £10 a year) is very nice, but there’s no Android version!

      How much money do they really expect to rake in by charging for this sort of thing, versus putting off long-term, hardcore fans who want this level of detail??

      1. there’s no Android version

        Yes there is

        1. Blockquote got messed up

  16. OmarR-Pepper (@)
    11th April 2014, 2:47

    I still see smiles and good environment in Mercedes… still.
    Let’s not forget a couple of competitive teammates (Vettel vs Webber, Hamilton vs Alonso) always ends up in sparks and serious faces. One of these guys (most definitely) will become the 2014WDC so let’s see when the honeymoon ends and they have to really take the most of it. Ham looks better, but Ros is still ahead in the standings. Some great duels are coming.

  17. Mark in Florida
    11th April 2014, 3:27

    Yeah the double point’s needs to be scrapped it was a joke to begin with. BMW coming back? We’ll see how that works out if they don’t have success right away are they going to leave again? Toyota should be in F1 they have been producing hybrids for a while now. It would be a natural move for them to be an engine supplier.

  18. Daniel (@daniel-f1-manager)
    11th April 2014, 5:15

    Why now? It could be good for all the loosers from this year.

  19. Thank you for keeping the driver weight issue in the spotlight. It seems all my favourite drivers are normal sized, Jenson, Hulk, Webber and Kubica. I don’t want to be wondering how they would compare to their shrimpy team-mates on an even playing playing field forever. In this age of analysing minute advantages why aren’t the FIA addressing such a hugely obvious unfair performance advantage? In the spirit of fair competition they should be obligated to understand the need to sort this out. Really glad the WDC appears to be a straight fight between two similarly sized pilots at Mercedes.

  20. This is just a hypothetical situation i was thinking about regarding the WDC and double points. Assume Mercedes maintain their performance advantage and finish 1-2 in all the races up to Abu Dhabi with no DNFs (big assumption i know but bear with me). That means there’s only 7 points to play for each race between them. Now assume that Hamilton (for example) wants to win with a race to spare so he doesn’t risk a DNF costing the championship, he will need to be 50 points ahead – which means gaining 61 more than Rosberg from now until Abu Dhabi.

    So an additional 61 points required over the next 15 races, with 7 gained for each win, and 7 lost for each 2nd place. If HAM won 11 races to ROS 4 he would get (11-4) x 7 = 49 points extra. So he could lose the championship having won a total of 13 races to Rosberg’s 6. So he would need to win 12 out of the next 15 to guarantee that one more DNF wouldn’t cost him the championship (assuming no other DNFs and Merc 1-2s all the way).

    That was just something i was thinking about, i know it’s an extreme case, and could equally happen the other way round. By the way i don’t think they should remove double points this year now that the teams have planned around it, i think they should keep it this year and scrap if for future years.

    1. @keithedin
      Username “sopa” came up with this scenario on the Autosport Forums – imagine the outrage from the fans if this were to happen. Hamilton or Rosberg, losing the championship despite winning 15 races.

      ” – ” stands for DNF.

      ROS 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 – 1 2 2 2 2 1 –>377
      HAM – 1 1 1 1 1 1 – 1 1 1 1 1 – 1 1 1 1 – –>375

      1. Yeah pretty much the same idea just he had HAM win every race he finished but with 4 DNFs to ROS 1 DNF, while i assumed just 2 DNFs for HAM with ROS winning 4 of the head to heads.

        1. @keithedin I know, your scenario is less extreme and even more realistic. This double points rule desperately needs to go.

    2. @keithedin
      Username “sopa” came up with this scenario on the Autosport Forums – imagine the outrage from the fans if this were to happen. Hamilton or Rosberg, losing the championship despite winning 15 races.

      ” – ” stands for DNF.

      ROS 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 – 1 2 2 2 2 1 –>377
      HAM – 1 1 1 1 1 1 – 1 1 1 1 1 – 1 1 1 1 – –>375

      1. @keithcollantine I have no idea why my posts always get posted twice. I’m so sorry for this to be happening again.

    3. All those hypothetical scenarios show me that Hamilton and/or his crew wouldn’t have gotten the job done if they were to lose the title. “To finish first, first you have to finish,” as the old saying goes; so if DNFs (whenever they may happen) cost you the title, you were the inferior competitor and deserve to lose the title.

      That logic of mine is why I agree with Jean Todt considering the reaction to this double points rule completely overblown. Well, we’ll see what happens.

      1. @klon

        Your statement applies if every race gave away the same number of points. The scenario above shows how unfair an unjustified 50 point grab at the final race can be. That’s the issue here, not reliability.

      2. OmarR-Pepper (@)
        11th April 2014, 15:15

        @klon unless another driver crashes your car (Grojean at Spa) or your tyres blow for no reason (Silverstone).
        It’s not necessarily to be less competitive, it’s also to be less lucky.
        If Glock had had more control on his car, Massa would be a 1wdc now vs ham with none. Or in the same year, if Piquet hadn’t crashed deliberately, Massa’s strategy would have paid off well so he, again, would be the 1wdc. Hamilton took the opportunity so he did what he was expected to. But there are many things a driver or the team can’t control, as the weather. Add to the equation a double points race and all turns into mayhem.

    4. @keithedin, great analysis, lousy conclusion.

      1. @hohum I’m just not in favour of changing the rules mid-season unless absolutely necessary. Yes double points is a crap rule, but teams have already scored points, so a rule change would be benefiting some teams more than others. I’d rather there were no more reasons to cry favouritism or bias from the rulemakers. As i mentioned in another post, teams will already have planned for double points in terms of engine usage, possibly car development, and how they allocated resources between this year and next, so imo too late to get rid of entirely now (no way all the teams would agree to it anyway).

        1. I disagree.

  21. What a bunch of possible good news!

  22. Stick with the double points or scrap it, but do one thing or the other because i’m sick of hearing about it now.

  23. Three race into the 2014 season, maybe it is time to took at reliability (Problems that caused a DNF) once more:

    Mercedes powered cars: (T = 4/24 (16,5%))
    Mercedes: Rosberg 0, Hamilton 1 (T = 1)
    Force India: Hülkenberg 0, Perez 1 (T = 1)
    McLaren: Magnussen 1, Button 1 (T = 2)
    Williams: Bottas 0, Massa 0 (T = 0)

    Ferrari (T = 3/18 (16%))
    Ferrari: Alonso 0, Räikkönen 0 (T = 0)
    Marussia: Bianchi 1, Chilton 0 (T = 1)
    Sauber: Sutil 2, Guttierez 1 (T = 2)

    Renault (T = 9/24 (37,5%))
    Red Bull: Vettel 1, Ricciardo 1 (T = 2)
    Toro Rosso: Kvyat 0, Vergne 2 (T = 2)
    Caterham: Ericsson 2, Kobayashi 0 (T = 2)
    Lotus: Maldonado 2, Grosjean 1 (T = 3)

    1. DNFs door problemen met de wagen:

      Mercedes powered cars: (T = 4/24 (16,5%))
      Mercedes: Rosberg 0, Hamilton 1 (T = 1)
      Force India: Hülkenberg 0, Perez 1 (T = 1)
      McLaren: Magnussen 1, Button 1 (T = 2)
      Williams: Bottas 0, Massa 0 (T = 0)

      Ferrari powered cars: (T = 3/18 (16%))
      Ferrari: Alonso 0, Räikkönen 0 (T = 0)
      Marussia: Bianchi 1, Chilton 0 (T = 1)
      Sauber: Sutil 1, Guttierez 1 (T = 2)

      Renault powered cars: (T = 9/24 (37,5%))
      Red Bull: Vettel 1, Ricciardo 1 (T = 2)
      Toro Rosso: Kvyat 0, Vergne 2 (T = 2)
      Caterham: Ericsson 2, Kobayashi 0 (T = 2)
      Lotus: Maldonado 2, Grosjean 1 (T = 3)

  24. With respect to RBR’s case getting stronger…I don’t see how it can as the appeal on the 14th will be about what happened in the first race, not about what has happened since. Anything since that race should be irrelevant and inadmissible to why they were dsq’ed in the first race.

    1. Because since then the results have demonstrated that the fuel sensors are very unstable and sometimes inaccurate .
      If nobody had had issues with the sensors yet then it would look bad for RedBull, its just like new evidence being found for any case, even if judgment has already been passed if it proves otherwise it has to be taken into consideration.

      The only issue is the way RedBull defied instructions to reduce fuel flow during the race, and how other teams obeyed the same instruction.
      But RedBull always had a way of interpreting regulations and finding loopholes to exploit them to their advantage so who’s to say they can’t this time ?

      I’m not a RedBull but I think Ricciardo deserves his 3rd place in Melbourne and that this fuel sensor issue needs to be fixed and rules laid out in the eventuality of any failures, closing any loopholes that might exist.

      1. What the results have demonstrated is that the fuel sensors installed in the Red Bull, Torro Rosso and Renault cars are very unstable, 96% of time. That’s according to the FIA and reported by AMuS. Said 3 teams have also admitted to performing modifications to the sensors in their installation. Now, correlation doesn’t imply causation, but the conclusions to be drawn here are fairly obvious…

    2. @robbie, in the 1st.race Dan did far better than the pundits believed possible so naturally they equated this performance with illegal fuel flow indicated by the FIA sensor, now Dan continues to perform to the same high standard without any illegal readings showing that his 1st. race result could have been achieved without illegal fuel flow.

      1. @hohum if the first race result could have been achieved without the illegal fuel flow, then they should have done that.

        Instead they chose to break the rules and would need to pay for it. Also I think McLaren performed way better in Australia than in the last two races. Nothing is black and white about that issue except that RB broke the rules that other teams followed.

        1. @evered7, so they are guilty and no evidence to the contrary should be considered at all. It is not yet established that their fuel flow exceeded the regulations in race 1, only that the sensor that was known to be unreliable gave readings in excess of the allowed limit, it is also not known whether any other team had the same problem and reduced their fuel flow to match the sensor reading. RBR may not have heeded the guidance from the tech commitee but saying others heeded that advice and were disadvantaged by doing so is pure speculation or pre-judice.

  25. Double points is a horrible idea, but changing the point system during a season is even more horrible idea. They should drop double points rule for next season, but not now.

    Besides, wouldn’t changing the double points rule require teams to vote unanimously? That’s not going to happen after Mercedes’ rocket start to the season, so I don’t know why Todt is suggesting that could happen.

  26. Re: all this road relevancy, “green” energy, lights at night, Boeing fuel consumption for the flyaway races… I’m wondering how fast the cars would be with 1.6 v6 turbo engines (plus free choice of whatever the manufacturers want to harvest), 100kg fuel per race and a minimum car weight of 500kg.

    Electric cars have been around for well over 100 years and have basically gone nowhere — despite official policy and financial subsidies trying to promote the “green dream.” I’m not convinced that it’s conceivable to lug around all the weight of batteries, electric motors and generators. and come out ahead of the game. And that’s forgetting the cost.

    I’m all in favour of technical progress, it should happen and will happen. I just question whether it’s worth messing up 22 cars and a perfectly good sport

    1. Electric cars have been around for well over 100 years and have basically gone nowhere

      Because development wasn’t driven by motorsport. Now it is.

      1. Well, the Tesla Roadster (I once had a test drive, very nice) is no longer in production. It can do about 300 miles at 25 mph, or about 50 miles “competitive driving.” Recharging then takes from about 5 hours with a special 90 amp connector, or 48 hours plugged into a normal 110 v. wall socket.

        So, my question is “will F1 do anything to improve this” rather than just mess up a sport that I have been following for more than sixty years? I can fully understand that other venues (such as Le Mans) can meaningfully introduce very specialized classes that may well lead to remarkable developments — I just don’t think that the cost and complexity belong in my favourite sport.

  27. @hohum Firstly ‘the pundits’ have nothing to do with this. It is about what RBR did in the first race. And only the first race. It is even irrelevant imho that they may have never breached 100kg per hour of flow rate. And that they may be able to prove that with their own measurements. The FIA sensor said they did, and were, and as shakey as those numbers might be, it was the method of measurement to be used, and in fact was used by all the other teams. That way even if the sensor readings aren’t the greatest, at least they’re the same for everyone.

    They don’t just get to go ahead and ignore the FIA warnings all weekend while everyone else obeyed, and then claim they can prove more accuracy with their measurements. When did the other teams get the opportunity to do this? When will RBR design their own wing flex test and claim their’s is more accurate and therefore should be allowed?

    RBR may have every leg to stand on regarding the first race…and this is only about the first race…but they still shunned the FIA all weekend, and if that is allowed as of April 14, then I guess there’s not only going to be appeals from the other teams that they were not allowed the same luxury as RBR, but there will be all kinds of ways and means that teams will ignore the FIA and simply claim they know better based on their own methods. Who is running the show?

    Basically, if I rob a bank today, (ie. break the law) but don’t tomorrow (ie. obey the law), should my bank robbing day be shuffled under the carpet?

    1. If you rob a bank today you have broken the law but if you refuse to obey a directive to evacuate your house in the face of natural disaster warnings you may be guilty of breach of by-laws or even fined but you will not be indicted for a criminal act. The penalty given RBR is appropriate for breach of regulations but if all they have done is ignored guidance then the penalty is innappropriate, the appeal will determine which is the case. @robbie

      1. @hohum If it was merely guidance, then sure, and other teams likely would have ignored the FIA too, and I highly doubt the conclusion after 5 and 1/2 hours would have been a dsq. They wouldn’t have needed that amount of time to begin with. But something made it take that long to decide, and something made the decision be this dire.

        I think I will take Whiting’s word for it when he explains that in the rules it states the instrument for measurement will be the fuel flow sensor. RBR did not heed the ‘guidance’ that they might want to consider following the rules, hence the punishment.

        1. @robbie, forget who but someone put the relevant rules up in a discussion on this subject a week or so ago, the upshot being that the technical committee cannot make regulations but only issue guidance, other commentators suggested other rules would give guidance the weight of regulations in certain circumstances, we will have to wait and see.

          1. @hohum If you go back to March 29 on this site, to a round-up entitled “Fix sensors or scrap them-Horner” you will see a link to an Adam Cooper blog in which there are direct quotes from Whiting that make it clear he is seeing this as a black and white issue where the rules, which he cites by article, state that the only method of measurement will be from the only component that is homologated which is the fuel flow sensor that is in everyone’s fuel tank.

            I think where the confusion seems to be is that some have suggested this word ‘guidance’ or ‘directive’ but I personally take from Whiting’s quotes that during Australia it was warnings the teams were being given about rule breaking, and to me must be the case or a dsq would never have been the conclusion.

            Like you said, we’ll have to see, but I don’t see how they have a leg to stand on, and I certainly would have trouble not laughing if I was part of the appeal process and they started talking about stuff that has happened after Australia that would have nothing to do with them ignoring the FIA all Australian weekend.

  28. “Red Bull’s case getting stronger” said … Red Bull. Saying things doesn’t actually make them happen.

    1. A perfect response from a one-eyed supporter. @cyclops_pl

      1. @hohum

        From Autosport “We have got a very strong case. As more races have progressed, issues have become more evident – and new evidence has come to light, new understandings have come to light. (…) Red Bull has declined to elaborate on what the new evidence is”.

        That means it’s just Red Bull’s own opinion in their own case. Without presenting the actual evidence or any other justification it doesn’t have any real value.

        1. @cyclops_pl, taking the performance of Dans car in all 3 races it has consistently been faster than the others, M-AMG excepted, which makes a very good case for saying restricting fuel flow by 4% to agree with a sensor known to be faulty would have been an unfair disadvantage placed on RBR and so far as we know RBR only.
          All will be revealed Monday.

          1. Only FIA would know if others were affected by the same 4%. There is no possible way for RBR to know if others were also equally disadvantaged, therefore no way for RBR to know if they were disadvantaged at all. In fact I think it was the opposite and only RBR was advantaged by using what presumably according to them is a more accurate reading, therefore they would have been ensuring the full flow rate for themselves leaving others to suffer with likely less flow due to everyone using the same homologated sensors as insisted upon during the weekend including during qualifying.

            I just don’t think any new evidence is relevant to Austalia. It is all about them ignoring the FIA that weekend and separating themselves from the others and therefore not being on the same playing field as the others, at least as I see it anyway. They cannot possibly argue that everyone else’s sensors were working perfectly and providing full flow and only they were disadvantaged and therefore had to take matters into their own hands and that should be without consequence.

  29. By the way, Bernie accepted the new entry by Gene Haas, and another unnamed entry. I diddn’t see it posted on here, so here you go. Got it from BBC Sport

    As an American F1 fan, i’m ecstatic, because finally the sport has an opportunity to grow here….so sick of NASCAR

  30. Michael Brown (@)
    11th April 2014, 18:22

    This is like the medal system, which was to go ahead until scrapped before the first race.

    I hope double points meets the same fate.

    1. Perfectly illustrates why all decisions in F1 should not be made by 1 man only, at least not the 1 we have now.

  31. Fascinating Reuters article on engineer tactics in the Mercedes team. Many thanks for that.

Comments are closed.