Start, Circuit de Catalunya, 2014

FIA ‘approves entry’ for 13th F1 team

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Start, Circuit de Catalunya, 2014In the round-up: The FIA has approved the planned entry of a second new F1 team, FRR, in addition to Haas Formula.


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

FIA grants entry to Romanian FRR F1 project (Adam Cooper’s F1 Blog)

“FRR has a lot more elements in place compared to Haas. It is planning to use a Renault power unit, while the car will be built and run by a team put together by former Force India and HRT boss Colin Kolles at his base near Munich.”

David Coulthard: “F1 drivers not happy” (AOL)

“The marketers love it because it gives them a reason to put their investment into F1, and I completely understand that, but the drivers are not enjoying driving the cars this year.”

Raikkonen bemoans unlucky 2014 (ESPN)

“I have driven well many times, but there’s always been something going wrong in the races – like punctures from other people hitting me – and it’s just never come together really. It’s a shame. Again we had a good position [in Monaco] but got a puncture so it’s just bad luck.”

‘We’re not just looking for the next Lewis Hamilton, we need to find the next Adrian Newey and Ross Brawn as well’ (The Independent)

John Surtees: “I hate so many regulations I must say. When I come along and I watch a programme and they start bringing up fuel gauges onto the programme to show how much fuel this driver’s got and whether he might have to ease off or adapt it’s another thing.”

Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg’s former karting boss says rivalry goes back further than Mercedes (The Mirror)

Dino Chiesa: “Lewis’ fast lap was always a little bit faster than Nico’s. He knew it then and he knows it today. That’s why he always waits so long until he goes out in qualifying.”

Success ‘a brilliant surprise’ (Sky)

Mercedes’ Andy Cowell: “[Separating the compressor and turbine] was an idea that came out of the group of people that sat down and laid the engine out. It was a mixture of people from the engine side, chassis side, programme managers – the whole works group of people.

Wolff: driver freedom won’t backfire (Autosport)

“They are part of a very large organisation and I have 110 per cent confidence that it will not be to the detriment of the team.”

Monaco 2014 – race edit (F1)

Highlights from the last race.

Emmo on Bruce, Denny, Can-Am and Indy (McLaren)

“[Denny Hulme] was sometimes surly and always superstitious – he refused even to sit in a race car on Friday 13th, for example, and even had that eccentric stipulation written into all his contracts – and he didn’t appear to care what people thought about him. But once you got to know him, you realised what a fantastic guy he was.”


Comment of the day

Nico Hulkenberg has been praised for his fine start to the year but @Craig-o says his team mate Sergio Perez deserves some credit too:

I’m genuinely impressed with the maturity he’s shown for most of the season so far. If it wasn’t for his needless contact in Monaco he could well have finished in the points too in every race he has started. […]

The fact that Hulkenberg hasn’t scored a podium let alone a win in his career is a travesty given his talent. I always thought that Perez would be good for a team like Force India but I never expected him to give Hulkenberg as much of a challenge as much as he has been doing, it’s another thing to keep up that sort of run all season long though.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Tom Parfitt!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Ayrton Senna announced his arrival in Formula One with an unforgettable drive in the pouring rain at Monaco.

He started his sixth grand prix from 13th on the grid, but in dreadful conditions he was closing on leader Alain Prost when the race was abandoned before half-distance. Both were also being caught by Stefan Bellof’s Tyrrell.

Sadly we’ll never know how the race would have turned out. But we do know Senna’s Toleman had sustained suspension damage which could have put him out; Tyrrell were eventually disqualified from the season because of a ballast infringement; and had Prost finished second in a full points race, instead of first in a half-distance race, he would have been that year’s champion.

Here are the closing stages of the race:

Image © Ferrari/Ercole Colombo

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.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 98 comments on “FIA ‘approves entry’ for 13th F1 team”

    1. Its great that there are more driver seats avaliable, but 26 cars in Monaco, Interlagos and Osterreichring… equidistantly placed that’s 3 seconds of clear track until you reach the next car!

      1. You say that like it’s a bad thing.

      2. Easily done, unfortunately – “Ok, maintain the gap at 3 seconds and save fuel. Remember to drink”
        I think team radio time time should come out of the driver’s stored energy for that lap.

      3. Imagine a full grid. Still no sound BTW.

    2. Those “percent” quotes are so annoying. Maybe it’s because I am a technical person but seriously, learn your math :)

      1. 110 percent confident, that is admitting that one is overconfident?

      2. Yeah, what’s the problem with 100%? Stop saying 110%, 120% or 200% …

      3. “I have 110 per cent confidence”

        Oh yeah? Well I have, like… 4000% confidence Toto!

        Seriously, to me whenever I see someone quoted saying that they have more confidence than is possible, drive the car faster than is possible, or extract more of the car’s potential than is possible, I pretty much think they are mentally challenged and I am very skeptical of anything they say from then on.

        1. and you do realize that it is a form of expression right? or you ACTUALLY think they are mentally challenged? because if you LITERALLY mean that, its pretty unreasonable.

        2. @us_peter It’s just hyperbole. I assume “I pretty much think they are mentally challenged” is the same?

      4. To be fair, I don’t think that it’s a math problem. 110% is a perfectly valid figure, except that it doesn’t apply to things like confidence, effort, dedication and so on. But I agree that they are somewhat annoying to us OCDs ;)

        1. Not when the maximum is by definition 100%. Values >100% are not valid in cases like this.

          Nothing to do with OCD. It’s spreading scientific illiteracy and general stupidity, and I think it is justified to be annoyed at such damage being done to society.

          @us_peter It’s the same for me, that sort of statement from somebody is enough to from then on heavily question their ability to properly understand, interpret and report even trivial events.

          1. I have a 3Ghz processor in my computer, but I am running it at 3.5Ghz, therefore it is running at 116%.

            1. This is not a comparable statement and deficient one, but from the previous part of the sentence, and the numbers themselves, it can be understood you meant that it’s running at 116% frequency COMPERED TO WHAT IT WAS BEFORE.

              If you don’t give that calculation, or make that clarification, either we have to assume you are talking in absolute values or its just random jabber.
              And most of the time it seems they intended to use it in that plain wrong, absolute way.

              And just for loughs, given the amount of times Alosno has said he will be giving 120%, which would have to be way over 50 times. If we assume he used in relative terms, like you did or are trying to suggest others do (maybe, I did not get your point).

              Than when he started he was “giving it” less than 0.01% of what he is now. (1/ (1.2^(>50))*100) Which means the Minardi might have been the fastest car on the grid for all we know! Alonso just couldn’t be bothered…

      5. Actually 120% or over is mathematically possible in some (many) cases…

      6. It’s nothing more than an expression. It’s not like they really mean 110%.

      7. Actually, any percentage is possible, when related to increase or decrease. As long as it is related to a (previous) figure, anything goes. If your confidence yesterday was 20%, and it now is 110%, then it actually stands at 22%. :)

      8. You can have a 200% increase in profits for example! but you cannot travel at 110% the speed of light, or operate at 110% of your maximum power output.

        1. You can do both. The speed of light varies, for instance, so the speed in one material might be 110% (x1.1 faster) than in another. At ‘max power’ is really short hand for ‘max power, allowing Y% chance of surviving X miles, at air pressure and temperature K’. So at a different altitude you might have more than 100% power.

    3. I got two words for Toto Wolff: ROSS BRAWN…haha.. I just had to!!

      Merc must be kidding themselves. If they continue in the current vein, its going to implode. Having said that, their advantage is such that whatever happens, they will still win both the titles. But perhaps that all Merc are interested in? Win at all costs perhaps?

    4. From David RBR Coulthard, comments attributed to virtually the entire team but only naming Christian Horner as a source, it seams that Christian will continue to flog the dead horse of F1 sound in his capacity as Bernies annointed one, this of course is a self fulfilling prophecy, the more the promoters of F1 publicise their view that F1 (which has been declining in popularity for some time) is even worse than it used to be the less chance there is that people who haven’t watched F1 before will decide to spend $500 to $1000 to go to a race or subscribe to a TV service.

      Watching the Monaco GP on TV I did notice that the harbour was not as full of yachts as it has been in past years like 2007 (when the cheap option of being anchored in the hbr. for 3 days cost $35,000 ) but I can assure you that yacht owners/charterers do not pay that kind of money to be deafened by the noise, rather they pay that sort of money to see and be seen by the good and the great on the other yachts attending, apart from the effects of the GFC I suspect that the prominence of yachts owned by Russian “Bizniss men”, oil rich princelings and arms dealers has rather taken the gloss off that aspect of attending. F1 is being driven in the wrong direction in pursuit of short term obscene profit margins, of which not enough is returned to the teams and the chickens are coming home to roost.

      1. @hohum – What a poorly written article that was. The body of the article merely repeated the headline several times without any further expounding or actual evidence that any of the drivers are “unhappy” about anything let alone the trumped up sound non-issue. I would propose that all the drivers happiness or unhappiness in regards to F1 is based on winning, or not. The only ones still squawking about the sound are the ones who believe they have some sort of stake in it. (Speaking mostly of pundits and promoters here. Not referring to actual fans with sentimental feelings about certain F1 motor sounds.)

        Coulthard has sadly become little more than a puppet. I used to at least occasionally enjoy his commentary or reporting. Now all I can hear is the rather square bobble headed bouncing to the tune of RBR as the his words drivel out.

        1. @bullmello, I agree, a very contrived attempt to resurrect an issue past its sell-by-date.

        2. I agree that Coulthard’s comments seem to be clearly aiming to serve Red Bull and Bernie rather than the sport.

          As you rightly point out, Coulthard doesn’t actually give any evidence for the change in attendance figures he is claiming.
          Furthermore, the actual number of ticketed attendees is tiny – the circuit only has a maximum capacity of 37,000 (22,000 grandstand seats and 15,000 general admission tickets), which is vastly outnumbered by the number of non ticketed spectators (the weekend attendance figures are usually estimated to be about 200,000) – so just a small drop in ticket sales can look like an abnormally large reduction in sales.

          After all, if you look at the attendance figures for the races up until Monaco, the attendance figures are actually pretty steady. Race day in Melbourne saw 100,500 people in 2014, compared to 103,000 in 2013, and the overall 2014 race weekend saw 315,000 compared to 323,000 in 2013 – a pretty small change in figures, and it looks like most of that came on Saturday due to the poor weather.

          As for the Chinese GP, the attendance figures for 2013 and 2014 were essentially identical – 180,000 over the race weekend – whilst in Spain the attendance figures were 205,000 and 214,000 in 2014 and 2013 respectively for the race weekend. The only race weekend where the numbers dropped significantly was in the Malaysian GP, but many feel that was because the nation was distraught over the loss of MH370, so the race rather faded into the background.

          All in all, the figures suggest that, at most normal circuits, the attendance figures are actually holding up a lot better than Bernie or Red Bull are suggesting.
          I’d argue that the reason for a slight drop in sales this year is more likely to be related to Vettel’s domination in the latter half of the 2013 season – we saw a similar trend in 2005, where ticket sales slipped due to Schumacher’s strong 2004 season, whilst declining ticket sales in late 2011 were put down to Vettel wrapping the title up so early in that season.

      2. Yes – waste of time reading it. Former Formula One ace turned TV commentator David Coulthard (“ace”, really?) says Nico and Lewis are probably “a bit happier” – Lewis is giving interviews about how great this car is to drive compared to last year.

    5. on david coulthard. he should shut up & get lost, im tired of hearing his voice on the bbc commentary, he’s just terrible with his constant dull, monotone voice & un-insightful nonsense.

      i am a big fan of ben edwards but i just cannot stand coulthard’s commentary, just waiting for our sky to be installed as i heard some stuff from croft & brundle & think there commentary is 1000x better than my coulthard.

      i am also fed up of this stupid whinging about the sound or the volume or whatever the gripe is. theres nothing wrong with it, the cars sound fine & sound loud enough. there is also nothing wrong with the racing, its been better this year than it has been for a while now & the cars are so much more fun to watch now that drivers actually have to drive them because there not glued to the track with the blown diffuser nonsense.

      also funny how mr coulthard is now all on the drivers side yet the past few years when they were complaining about the pirelli tyres he was saying they should shut up & deal with it, total hypocrisy!

      get david coulthard off my tv please!

      1. BBC has a guy covering GP2, don’t his name who has a terrible voice but I actually like his commentary. As for DC, he’s not great but he’s not that bad either. Some drivers don’t like these cars because they do not perform well, I’ve heared Lewis saying W05 is the best car he’s ever driven…

        1. Do you mean Sky’s GP2/3 commentator, Will Buxton?

          I tend to think of Buxton, Croft and Edwards as being a bit like Marmite (throw Murray Walker in there too). Personally, I like the enthusiasm and passion for the sport they bring.

      2. DC’s endless comparisons of tracks to natural amphitheatres did it for me. I dont miss BBC coverage one bit and happily pay my 50 quid a month for the sky subscription which is excellent and very good value for money

        1. Tom (@11mcgratht)
          3rd June 2014, 21:30

          £50 a month into Murdoch’s greasy little hands mind…

      3. I would never go to Sky if I can watch on the BBC.

        1. Tom (@11mcgratht)
          3rd June 2014, 21:28

          Well said sir! I despise the way in which Mr Murdoch’s Sky empire muscled into F1 and stole all the best personnel from the BBC coverage. If I were to watch Sky coverage (which, by the way, for £50 isn’t always very good) i would feel sick at having robbed so many more people of their favorite BBC pundits. Sky, I’m afraid, is for classless people for enjoying flashing their wealth.

          1. wow, yet another “sky stole F1!” post.
            fact: the BBC could not afford to cover the entire F1 season.

            sky stepped in, and presumably with them not being a direct terrestrial competitor to the bbc, were welcomed.
            why people moved from the bbc to sky, i cannot answer, but presumably it came down to £’s whether that by BBC wanting to cut wages (as was happening to other employees at that time) or sky offering more, i don’t know.
            the BBC were most definitely not the wronged party in the whole sorry story.

    6. The people who seem to think that the new power units & volume will turn people off.

      The monaco Gp TV ratings were up on both Sky & the BBC.
      Sky’s ratings were up 25%, BBC’s were up 7%.
      This years race was the 3rd highest rated Monaco Gp over the past decade (Only 2010/2011 were higher).

      1. Paul (@frankjaeger)
        3rd June 2014, 2:04

        Hmm that’s really interesting. I’m glad figures aren’t plummeting like some suggest. Do these stats have any source?

      2. That is because the of the race between the Merc drivers and Marussia’s first point. The race is not influenced by the sound, but the “show” is.

      3. Maybe that was because of all the build up after Saturday’s controvertial qualifying.

        The media goes frenzy with that kind of stuff, and everyone wants to know what’s going to happen, specially, as you mention, that’s british broadcasting and a brit was involved (and to the general view, unfairly beaten).

        So I’d not jump in the boat just that easily… Personally, I don’t like this new formula as a fan (the sounds are really a let down, but I rather have that than teams altering the sound, cuz that’s just as fake as DRS), but I understand that it’s kinda the future, and it’s all we have, like it or not…

        1. Maybe that was because of all the build up after Saturday’s controvertial qualifying.

          Ratings for qualifying were up as well though, Again on both Sky & BBC.

          Regarding a source-

    7. Well there’s irony for you, a Ferrari dealer useing Renault engines in cars racing as Forza Rosso.

      1. @hohum +1.

        I wish them well but last time I checked Romanian finances were not that healthy, I hope they do not rely too much on state funds.

        1. @jcost: Indeed they’re not, but Ion Bazac has very close ties to the government and could easily get public money. This has been done before, as Mihai Marinescu, runs in F2 with a car that has big “Romania” logos on the side, sponsored by the Ministry of Tourism.

    8. Omar R (@omarr-pepper)
      3rd June 2014, 1:37

      I think FRR reminds me of HRT, don’t know why… :(

      1. @omarr-pepper it’s the Kolles Factor…

    9. Paul (@frankjaeger)
      3rd June 2014, 2:06

      A 26 car grid would be brilliant. If Haas and FFR aren’t front runners, I hope they can add to the Caterham-Sauber-Marussia dynamic.

      Also means some talented rookies can grab a seat

      1. Tom (@11mcgratht)
        3rd June 2014, 21:32

        The grid has felt pretty empty for the last few years so hopefully these new teams should add a little spice and colour here and there

    10. you know if something like a team is run by Colin Kolles, it’s going downhill fast. Look at HRT (even though they ran out of money and was just a crap team in general) but, I don’t think he has the capabilities to run a team. But that’s my opinion.

      1. @kieferh4 He has more nous that most people and is a fighter. The problem is, everyone comes to him because they expect him to run F1 teams on spit, shoelaces and string.

        1. yeah, I said HRT was a crap team that shoudn’t have gone on as long as it did, but the flip side to that is that he kept that team going for what, two years, on nothing but the smell of an oily rag, but then again, he put them in more strife than before, not delivering (that was because their car was slower than the Marussia’s though) the team wasn’t getting paid properly (or so I have heard) and he signed more drivers and burnt through what little budget they had in two years. But again, that’s my opinion.

      2. Don’t forget the fact that he tried to blackmail Toto Wolff.
        One of the more memorable mistakes he made before the demise of HRT was not guaranteeing a budget for Geoff Willis for the development of the car. To do something like that and consequently lose someone of his talent was foolish; though he may not be as highly rated as Newey, it was still a big mistake and could have made them more competitive. Willis is clearly helping Mercedes (along with others, obviously).

        1. but either way, the power-pack in that car was rubbish. I mean, any amount of development to that ‘thing’ that they called a car would’ve made no difference what so ever. And yes, obviously Adrian Newey is WAY better at what he does and he can do that because RBR have resources coming out of the windows of that joint. they get more money from Red Bull and all their other sponsors to create another three teams and make them front runners. But as I said, I have my opinions and doubts, and hey, he might just do the exact opposite and lead that team to a mid-field, possibly a close to front running team

    11. CoTD makes me wonder, is weight a factor why Perez is being able to run Hulkenberg close?

      1. A few races ago Hulkenberg said that he was not running overweight and actually had some ballast. There will be a slight disadvantage when it comes to weight distribution with Hulkenberg having less ballast than Perez and being taller (higher CoG). When updates come along, the weight difference might start to become a factor.

        1. It only really seems to be the Ferrari powered teams that are struggling with being noticeably overweight, which seems to tie in with the rumours that Ferrari’s engine is badly overweight.

          The rumours from the German press in the pre-season testing phase was that, thanks to a new lightweight chassis design, Force India were able to get their car, even with Hulkenberg on board, pretty comfortably under the weight limit (there was talk of at least 10kg of ballast required).

          I suspect that the more likely reason why Perez is closer to Hulkenberg than might have been expected would be because Force India have been making some modifications to their suspension system over the past few races.
          They were running an interconnected system similar to the one Lotus and Mercedes use, but they have removed it in more recent races – it seems that Perez was struggling a little more than Hulkenberg to adapt to the interconnected suspension, so the change seems to have favoured him slightly more than Hulkenberg.

    12. Raikkonen bemoans unlucky 2014: “there’s always been something going wrong in the races”.
      Isn’t that what Massa used to say many times when he was at Ferrari?! May be it’s some sort of permanent Ferrari’s 2nd driver’s luck.

      1. Vettel must be preparing for a move to Ferrari then…

      2. Im getting really tired of listening to his excuses. Who ruined his race at Monaco other than himself btw?

        1. Lol Chilton drove into him under the safety car and gave him a puncture.

          1. It was actually a question, hence the questionmark ;) Couldnt remember if anyone hit him. But that dosent justify his driving afterwards, ruining other peoples races…

    13. There is not enough talk about how the best track on the calender is coming up this weekend!! I for one am hoping the Mercs don’t finish the race… If we want a good racing season then Red Bull needs to start catching up and they are going to need Mercedes to falter, at least a bit. Otherwise this season will be over before we even get half way to the end.

      1. It is not going to be easy for RB to catch mercs in Montreal because of the straights. I think it will be FI and Williams chasing the mercs because of the nature of the circuit and RBR and Ferrari would be battling for bottom half of the points positions given that Williams will not do the mistake they did in Bahrain by going for 3 stopper as I think it would be a one stopper for many teams based on the fact that 2014 tyres are harder and last year PdR could do 47 laps on the soft tyre he started his race with.

        1. Tom (@11mcgratht)
          3rd June 2014, 21:38

          I’m thoroughily enjoying this run of Mercedes dominance. Due to more races and points than ever before the Red Bull team is already catching the achievements of Lotus and Williams. That can’t be right! they’ve only been around for a few years anyway. If Hamilton could catch Vettel’s stats for wins and poles it could be really interesting by the end of their careers to see who has most.

    14. I personally am fine with the sound, and I would be fine if it was changed too. I think there is a percentage who are not for the new sound, and DC, whether he bleeds RBR or not, is just expressing that side of the argument.

      As to drivers not liking the new experience, the new feel of the cars and how they drive, I do feel for them if they truly feel they are missing something that was special. There’s a chance that even NR and LH miss how the cars used to feel in terms of raw experience. Unfortunately I have heard BE say well in the past, it’s not his concern whether the drivers like it (whatever the rules or changes etc) or not.

      As DC points out, the ratings will do the talking, the fans and the bottom line will help dictate the direction F1 keeps striving for to keep market share. One of the constants in F1 is change. I suspect that the sound issue is not dead within F1 nor are they panicked and if a feasible change can be made that is an improvement, it can’t hurt. I doubt they’ll get them to scream though…they’re simply too different…so what will be good enough?

    15. 13th F1 team….. as if Q1 is not crowded enough as it is.

      1. I don’t think it’s really an issue. Porsche Carrera Cup Germany currently has 37 cars. The 2nd race of the current season took place at Oschersleben, which is only 3.7km long (~90s for those cars) and Q1 runs for 20 minutes. No problem.

        1. @girts The Formula Renault 2.0 Eurocup races I was commentating on last weekend had 40 cars – and that was two fewer than last year! But they were are Spa so they had a bit more room. Hard work learning to spot all those cars though :-)

          1. Amazing how well some series like Eurocup are doing, while a series like British F3 is still struggling to get a grid together, despite taking a year out and trying to cut costs..

      2. If anything, it means less lulls and more activity as everyone will want/need some clean running.

        1. @optimaximal And it will add to the drama if a top driver doesn’t make Q2 because he couldn’t find that crucial free air.

      3. I never understood why qualifying is limites to 1 hour. FP1, 2 and 3 are all 90 minutes, the race is even longer so why cap it at 1 hour for qualifying? More time could provide a less crowded track. Not that I think it’s crowded.

    16. Lewis’ fast lap was always a little bit faster than Nico’s. He knew it then and he knows it today. That’s why he always waits so long until he goes out in qualifying.

      This is really good to know.

    17. I find it suspicious for a Ferrari-backed team to use Renault engines, as soon as next year.
      Smells like technology stealing.

      1. It depends… There are Ferrari links in the team ownership, but money is also apparently coming from Dacia, who are owned by Renault.

        1. Didn’t know that, thanks for the info.

    18. I’m getting really fed up with the ‘the sound isn’t so good someone should do something about it’ complaints. If you dislike it, then please propose a sustainable way to change it. We can’t go back to V8s, V10s or V12s because Mercedes, Renault and Honda will leave, so we need something different – please give me a good alternative or please stop complaining.

      Coulthard’s comments of ‘the Monaco GP sales were down 20% you see? people don’t like the sound’ comment is particularly laughable. I can give you a whole washing list of what’s wrong with F1 and why people don’t go to the GPs anymore, where top of the list is the ridiculous amount of money one has to pay to see 6.5 hours of total F1 track time (probably 5 hours effectively).

      And how about the WEC then? The amount of decibels the LMP1 cars produce is underwhelming (the Audis hardly make any noise), yet its popularity is increasing. I mean, what more evidence do you need that the noise simply isn’t the issue here?

      1. Trying to convince people with evidence, when the opinion was preconceived without any evidence to begin with…

      2. You’re absolutely spot on there. Don’t forget that a lot of people are willing to try Formula E later this year (that will hardly be an ear buster). @andae23

        I really don’t remember this uproar when F1 moved from the V10s to the V8s. The new engines even produce more power than the ones of last year, I prefer power over noise.

      3. @andae23

        If you dislike it, then please propose a sustainable way to change it.

        Scrap the ridiculous fuel flow restriction rule, give them 125 kg of fuel and allow them to run up to 15.000 rpm’s. I’ll guarantee they’ll sound a whole lot better.

        As for fuel savings? Scrap the ridiculously fuel guzzling jets flying overhead at the start of several GP’s. That alone will save more fuel than all F1 cars do now over the course of this season compared to last years.

        I can give you a whole washing list of what’s wrong with F1 and why people don’t go to the GPs anymore, where top of the list is the ridiculous amount of money one has to pay to see 6.5 hours of total F1 track time (probably 5 hours effectively).

        I agree, but the sound isn’t helping. To you and me the sound isn’t a concern. I know I would probably still watch if F1 becomes fully electric. I’d be tested, but I’d probably still watch it.
        That’s not the case for the more average viewer though. I’ve heard plenty of people who used to like watching a race every now and then say they’re not interested because the cars don’t sound good anymore.
        That and the looks and the one team/man winning constantly are the biggest complaints I hear from non fanatics.

        1. I agree. Increasing the rev limit may improve the sound and add spectacle due to the torque and wheelspins.

        2. Alex McFarlane
          3rd June 2014, 16:33

          The fuel flow rate is anything but ridiculous – if you understand why it’s there. It actually allows for far more consistent racing, as opposed to two thirds of a race being an economy run followed by a wasteful sprint to the finish (which the Mercs still managed in 2 of the races) – much like the previous turbo era. There was a good article about fuel flow on the racecar engineering website, I don’t have the link at had.

      4. @andae23 This is unprofessional from Coulthard. As far as I know, no one (except F1F) has tried to do a serious fans’ survey that would reveal if and why their interest in F1 has decreased in 2014.

        Even if Monaco indeed was “20 per cent down this year”, there could be umpteen reasons for it, such as Red Bull’s domination last year (many fans make the decision (not) to go to a race early). It’s also obvious that most fans simply cannot afford to buy F1 tickets (my bank calls me every time when I buy them to make sure that everything is alright as I never buy anything else that expensive). Marketing is another thing that should be improved and telling the world that “our engines sound terrible” won’t attract people either.

        As for the drivers, if they don’t enjoy doing their job, it’s not nice but I’m not sure if it has ever been different, I think those who don’t win have always been complaining…

        1. @girts We must keep in mind the people that are active on this site are not really the ‘average’ F1 viewer.

      5. @andae23 I get what you are saying about suggesting alternatives rather than just complaining about the noise or lack thereof, but I wouldn’t expect DC to know the answer to that as it seems the teams don’t either, but rather if he feels that strongly that it is a key issue then he is really just promoting the cause for change. Even though it doesn’t bother me personally, it does seem to be an issue that I doubt will go away by reminding people of what LMP1 sounds like. LMP1 cars did not just last year and for many more, have screaming V8’s, 10’s, 12’s in them. LMP1 cars are not professed to be the pinnacle of cars.

        I’m sure DC is aware of all the things wrong with F1, and perhaps he thinks enhancing the noise is a fairly easily achieved thing compared to other issues it has to, or at least should try to fix. Nobody complained about the screaming engines before, but there is certainly a faction that are complaing about the sound now, and F1 didn’t need that blow to it’s CV. I think it was far more unprofessional for BE to start the ball rolling as the first and most key person to remark negatively, and everyone has been taking a page from that book since. I think there will likely be change made if not during this season, then for next season.

        If I find anything unprofessional it is that F1 knew 3 years ago the direction they were going and given that there would have been PUs on test benches way way before this season began, the sound should have come as no surprise and should have been dealt with before the public got to hear them in pre-season, if it is actually harming the ratings or turnout at the track. They could have done more to survey people on their reactions to the new F1. Or…they knew this was going to happen and have decided it is just the way it is and if it hurts by turning some off, that’s just the way it is, and if that is the case DC won’t be complaining much longer without sounding like a broken record and bitter.

    19. I find it incredible that a man as wise as John Surtees can say in one sentence:

      “I hate so many regulations I must say,” he admits. “When I come along and I watch a programme and they start bringing up fuel gauges onto the programme to show how much fuel this driver’s got and whether he might have to ease off or adapt it’s another thing”

      …only to follow that up with:

      “I raced at Monaco and I had the opportunity to win there a few times and I ran out of petrol on the last lap and I got this and that and all sorts of things…”

      Does he not see that he just proved fuel management has always been a part of the sport?

      1. Does he not see that he just proved fuel management has always been a part of the sport?

        @geemac Hill’s and Clark’s fuel issues contributed to his 1964 title even..

      2. @geemac Ok I’ll play devil’s advocate…do you not see that you just called the man wise, and then shot him down, in the same commentary?

        I’ll stick with the wise theme. I would suggest that few know moreso that fuel management has always been part of racing than John Surtees. I suggest that if questioned further on this topic he might say never has it been such an overwhelming part of F1, nor have they until now literally put graphs on the screen for us to see as the races go along, re-enforcing how much of the game conservation, rather than all-out racing, is the new reality.

        Sure it isn’t always an issue in reality, and often the cars this year are indeed finishing with enough fuel, but it is being rammed down our throats whether they actually did have to conserve or were able to in fact push, that fuel consumption seems a constant and therefore overwhelming concern. And many around here and within F1 have been bemoaning them being limited from pushing either by fuel restrictions or tires for several years now.

        1. @robbie I mentioned that Surtees is wise because he is someone I respect tremendously.

          I see your point, but this is an information age. People crave information in all walks of life, particularly sport and especially F1. In football we get interesting information like player’s heat maps and useless information like how far they have run during the game. In rugby you get information on tackles, offloads, linebreaks. In cricket you get strike rates and batting averages.

          FOM give us graphics like fuel consumption because it is a piece of info which affects the outcome of the race, just like the gaps between the cars and the amount of time they spend in the pits. It adds to the viewing experience and gives us more of an insight into what is going on, it is isn’t a bad thing. They are just like team radio broadcasts, we could (and did for a long time) do without them, but they add to the experience. Fuel management has always been a part of the sport, yes there is a bigger focus on it now but that is because the sport is changing, the world is changing. F1 cars have a limited amount of fuel for the race and a maximum flow rate, these are fundamental to how the cars work and are necessary to keep the sport moving with the times and to keep manufacturers interested. That’s why we need that information and why it is now in the spotlight.

          1. @geemac I never doubted that you respect Surtees, and I know you were just making a point. I do get what you are saying about the information age, but I’m not convinced many racing fans want changes in the racing to be about the race engineer telling the driver when and when not to push, such as in Monaco where while leading NR had been told repeatedly, and we were allowed to hear, he needed to start conserving more. Information is good, graphs are good, I’m just not sure we want fuel conservation and those particular graphs dominating the show. And it sounds to me like that was Surtees’ point. I think that the fact the current PUs are relative misers on fuel, and that there is a lot of energy being recovered, can be promoted while at the same time formulating F1 such that the drivers can push like we would/should expect for the pinnacle of racing. And that goes for tire conservation as well. Always a part of racing, but doesn’t mean it has to dominate to the point of limiting what the cars and drivers can do so much (of course this year better than last in that regard, but still not where the drivers would like).

      3. Does he not see that he just proved fuel management has always been a part of the sport?

        It was in the driver´s hands back then, whilst today drivers are doing whatever the team says on the fuel system. The problem isn´t about managment, neither with fuel nor with tyres. It is about the team doing all the thinking. Give that back to the driver, that means heavily cut down the telemetery by a strict rule-package on it, I´d say.

    20. GeordieRacer
      3rd June 2014, 10:39

      It’s such a shame that Monaco ’84 was stolen from…………Stefan Bellof.

      1. Tyrrell’s car was later disqualified that year and they lost all the points they got

    21. I wish Cristian Horner would just stop talking. His complaints that the sound isn’t exciting enough is all related to his desire to make alterations to the engine regulations in order to benefit Red Bull. It’s nepotism masquerading as fond memories.

      It’s utterly stupid and ridiculous to even entertain the idea of reversing or altering the technical regualtions at this extremely late stage. In my opinion it was high time F1 did away with the gas guzzling high capacity motors (and yes I do have fond memories of them too) in favour of something more efficient. F1 sets itself out to be the pinnacle of motorsport both in terms of technology and performance so as such it falls to them to be the standard bearer to other categories to encourage the world of fossil fueled cars to clean up. Time to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

      The old cliched argument that making a few racing cars more efficient isn’t going to save the world from climate change just doesn’t wash. It’s a pathetic platitude to those who would rather bury their heads in the sand than face up to the reality of the challenges humanity faces in the coming decades.

      All walks of life should act responsibly towards the subject of climate change. It is moronic to suggest that cars should be given carte blanche to be as wasteful is they like just because other industries cause more pollution.

      There is a reason we don’t race chariots anymore, it’s called progress!!!

    22. Why does it take FIA 15 years to return a helmet? Must be some legal thing. Those are the only thing that moves slow enough to warrant such a long wait.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.