Brabham seeks crowdfunded return to racing

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Brabham, which last appeared in F1 in 1992, could return to motor racing as David Brabham is relaunching the name with a crowdfunded effort to start a World Endurance Championship team.


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

Project Brabham (Indiegogo)

David Brabham: “Crowdfunding gives people the chance to be part of the team from the start. Once we have built a large community we will start to see the power of a collective force that will attract the funds and partners to make this journey a success. Come and join us and create another piece of history.”

Mercedes’ edge is shrinking – Red Bull (Autosport)

Christian Horner: “Due to their shocking reliability, we are still in this championship.”

Interview: Q&A with Pat Symonds (Richland F1)

“I’ve certainly moved on to a much better place [since Singapore 2008] and I think everyone who knows me knows that that wasn’t typical, just one of those things.”

Bringing New Cars To Old Consoles In F1 2014 (The Sixth Axis)

“When we originally implemented the engines, all of the information we were given was that the ERS system would be part of the throttle mapping for the power unit, rather than a deployed boost as with KERS. So for that reason, there’s no player controlled system, it’s all handled along with the engine/throttle map settings, which control power and adjust fuel usage. The addition of ‘overtake’ buttons only started to become apparent part way in to the season unfortunately.”

Kate Walker: Melting the glacier (Crash)

“It is not sporting to change the rules to accommodate poor performance. And that is exactly what would be happening were the unfreeze to go ahead.”

Why an engine unfreeze is good for F1 (Joe Saward)

“The whole [car] industry is geared towards financial efficiency and F1 does not fit. That is easily changed with a properly presented FIA cost cap regulation.”

Why India’s Mars mission is so cheap – and thrilling

India’s Mars orbiter cost $74m. Most F1 teams’ annual budgets exceed that. Food for thought.


Comment of the day

@Mattypf1 on Andre Lotterer’s comments about F1 being less of a challenge than it used to be.

While I still feel sorry for Andre Lotterer after his Caterham failed after one lap in what was a one off race for him, I agree as well as disagree with his comments about F1 today.

While the whole less grip and less downforce can be a pain towards the drivers and may benefit some drivers more than others, for someone like me, a big fan and spectator of F1, these 2014 cars are amazing!

Why? Because for the first time in a while, I finally get to see drivers having a bit more of a challenge in driving the cars.

While the grip and downforce is lovely for the driver, the fans and spectators don’t just watch a grand prix to see who won, they watch F1 for the race itself and if there’s no challenges, then it can’t be that exciting can it?

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to James Brickles, Wout and Oel F1!

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

Damon Hill scored another valuable win in Michael Schumacher’s absence on this day 20 years ago in Portugal.

An article on this race will appear here later today as part of F1 Fanatic’s retrospective on the 1994 season.

Image © Ford

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.

71 comments on “Brabham seeks crowdfunded return to racing”

  1. The Project Brabham indiegogo page brags that “David has a lot of experience in working with some of the best young drivers through the Brabham Performance Clinic, such as former F1 test drivers Sam Bird and James Calado, and current Marussia F1 team driver Max Chilton, to name but a few.”

    I’m just saying… If I had taught Max Chilton to race… I’m not sure I’d want to advertise that fact.

    1. He ain’t Ide!

  2. Good COTD, good point well made. If only there was that silver bullet that will fix it all.

    1. The big challenge at Singapore was being able to drive like a grandmother, that is not going to improve the show. A re-think on tyres and pit-stops is needed.

      1. What’s the solution or re-think then? I agree with the COTD, 2014 has been an amazing years to watch these cars. I’ve watched F1 for a long enough amount of time now that, no one is happy at any certain point in time. It doesn’t matter.

        10 years ago it was boring because teams were trying to pass in the pits than rather on the track. 2010, while championship wise, was exciting, according to some the races were boring because the tires were too hard, usually one stop would be enough (bar Canada), and no passing. Now, they pass on the track but it’s either because the car in front was conserving tires or DRS was used.

        1. While it is true that the racing this year is much better mainly because tyre wear has been less of an issue than recent years it doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be even better with less tyre wear, in fact logic would suggest that it should be better. I don’t recall 2010 as a boring year, I also don’t recall people complaining about the tyres lasting too well, as for pit-stops they are a sideshow Bernie bought in from the USA as was re-fuelling both of them Bernie idea of how to sell F! to the USA audience, I will be happy to see the back of them as they break up battles between drivers in cars with similar ability, part of this years great racing is due to the different strengths and weakness’ of different cars, some are faster in corners some are faster down the straight, only MB are fast all round the track, with regular pit stops teams try to keep their cars in clean air so as not to be held up by other cars in the area they are best at. Better tyres and fewer (or no) pitstops will keep the cars closer and force drivers to pass on the track, if we see “Trulli trains” blame excessive reliance on front wing downforce or poor track design not lack of pit-stops.

          1. for @sward28, and any one else who cares to read it.

          2. @hohum An interesting point. However a lack of pit-stops also means a lack of strategy, it becomes less of a team sport again.
            Plus you’d have the issue of the fastest car pretty much always winning, bar any technical issues. For the most part this would be true, however it would probably have only changed one race outcome this year. For example, Hungary would probably have been a different result, but Spa and Canada probably would have ended similarly to how they did, as well as every other race.

            My personal thought on tyres is this:

            -3 different compounds, soft, medium, hard (just for sake of ease).
            -All of these compound are brought to each event
            -You can choose any of them, run any combination you like.

            -If you run exclusively the soft, you should expect 2 pit-stops if you drive flat out constantly.
            -If you run exclusively the medium, you should expect 1 pit-stop if you drive flat out.
            -If you run exclusively the hard, you should expect to be able to do this to the end of the race flat out.

            -Trying to one stop on the softs should be slower than using the mediums.
            -Trying to no stop on the mediums should be slower than using the hards.
            -Trying to no stop the softs should be the slowest.
            -Trying to 2 stop the mediums or 1 stop the hard would be slower, as the other tyres do it flat out.
            -Running exclusively all one type of tyre should be about the same race time as each other.

            I used a lot of ‘should’ there, and that’s because you could have teams who have created a car who might degrade tyres quicker, or save tyres better. Some teams could flat out the softs for a 1 stop, where as some may need to flat out for 3 stops. Would that team still use the softs? Maybe not, maybe they’ll need to do soft soft medium. Strategy is still here this way, but they can still race flat out. So the reason the tyres work is different teams would work them in different ways. Also different tracks would affect this. Some races may mean that only the hard and medium are used, some tracks cause only soft and medium, or maybe just medium, or soft etc…

            I don’t know, maybe it’s a good solution, maybe it’s not?

          3. @philereid, the difficulty with your suggestion is the fact that you are never going to balance all three compounds to produce your idealised solution for every single circuit.

            Yes, there have been occasional examples of drivers using very unconventional strategies for success, but you are unlikely to get that much of a difference in strategies overall – historical evidence suggests that, normally, one strategy will be clearly faster and will be the preferred option.

            A good example of that in action would be Bridgestone’s approach to tyre development – they initially started out with a wider range of compounds, but quite soon they ended up narrowing their range because different teams would usually pick the same tyres at each circuit to run the same strategies, and they didn’t want to pay for hauling numerous tyres around the world that would never be used.

          4. @philereid, the difficulty with your suggestion is the fact that you are never going to balance all three compounds to produce your idealised solution for every single circuit.

            Yes, there have been occasional examples of drivers using very unconventional strategies for success, but you are unlikely to get that much of a difference in strategies overall – historical evidence suggests that, normally, one strategy will be clearly faster and will be the preferred option.

            A good example of that in action would be Bridgestone’s approach to tyre development – they initially started out with a wider range of compounds, but quite soon they ended up narrowing their range because different teams would usually pick the same tyres at each circuit to run the same strategies, and they didn’t want to pay for hauling numerous tyres around the world that would never be used.

          5. @philereid, 1st. I believe the first car race ( like the first horse race ) was held to determine which was the fastest car, artificially manipulating the rules to prevent the fastest car winning is the problem not the solution.

            2nd. I agree with the principle of your tyre idea, I would support it if it were simplified to 2 choices of compound, hard and soft as in MotoGP, pit stops optional.


      2. What? The only reason Williams had to do that stupid strategy was because of the SC at the worst time for them. And it obviously ended being a bad call, since it didnt work out for one of their drivers.

        1. @austus it didn’t work out for Bottas because he lost the power steering which had the effect of degrading the rear tyres quicker than they would normally. That’s why the tyres fell off before the end of the race and also part of the reason why his pace was so poor before then.

      3. Taking care of the car while driving incredibly fast, like Hammy did, is _exactly_ what has improved the show.

      4. They weren’t all driving like grandmas @hohum. That’s the difference to 2012 Random F1™

        1. @john-h, no not all, but most were driving to avoid an extra pit-stop and even Hamilton was in conservation mode until he had to re-build the gap he lost behind the safety car.

          1. Yes, because his car never failed when he was about to win in Singapore.

          2. @hohum drivers with pace in the pocket and limitted engines to use will conserve the equipment when leading.

      5. @hohum Most teams chose the ‘grandmother’ strategy but in this case it looks like they scared each other into it (probably due to lack of passing opportunities in Singapore). The drivers who took gambles and went for the ‘boy racer’ strategy actually ended up with very good results – see Vergne, Perez (and Hamilton although he possibly could have won on either strategy). I would argue in this case most teams got it wrong and the aggressive strategy would have given better results aswell as a better race for us fans. Agree that extreme tyre saving isn’t good for the show though.

        1. @keithedin, whether right or wrong the teams seem to always chose tyre management over pace, probably because they remember Kimi going from a likely podium finish to nowhere in the last 2 laps of an early Pirelli shod race.

          @jcost, sure the leader is smart to conserve his equipment but for a good show or a proper race every car that is not leading has to try to get ahead of every car in front of it.

  3. Jonny Speedriff
    25th September 2014, 0:30

    Project Brabham? I’m in.

  4. Rosberg’s tweet.
    It is obviously a joke. Because the cars his father drove were not easy to drive at all.

    Most of them understeered badly mid corner and power slid on the exit.
    All adjustments had to be done through the actual steering wheel. Drivers had to constantly adjust their driving, style and not adjust the car’s diffs and engine mode.

    Think of it this way.
    Nowadays, drivers turn knobs and press buttons kin the car.
    Before, they adjust their brains and driving styles.

    1. The cars may not have been that easy to drive, but you could generally concentrate on driving, and nothing else.

      Today the drivers needs to be half engineers and half drivers while driving the cars. If FIA has their way with their ridiculous radio ban, they’ll need to be full engineers and half drivers.

    2. @brunes I think that he was referring to the problem that he had with wiring loom which was connected to the steering wheel that they changed twice and still not fix the problem… woow my head started to spin real fast..

    3. Yep, I’ve never heard of a little friendly father son ribbing before, and he’s German too, so he MUST have been dead serious…… :-)

      Wonder what the chances were of the loom (what loom??) failing on that old steering wheel! HA! #Old school FTW

  5. OmarR-Pepper (@)
    25th September 2014, 0:49

    About the buttons in the steering wheel… if Fia wants a road-relevant approach, why don’t they force teams to decrease the buttons year by year? I know these cars are full of technology, but so are modern road cars (compared to old road cars I mean), and the things you can adjust by yourself in a road car are few. If they want drivers to really drive “alone and unaided” that could be a fair solution, a steering wheel that, to start, is an actual wheel and not a videogame joystick. Let’s see if then Nico and other current F1 guys would say “it was easy in the old times”.

    1. Not to mention a foot operated clutch and a mechanical gearshift.

      1. To be fair, not many cars these days actually have a manual clutch and mechanical gearshift. Even your top end sports/supercars all have paddleshift transmissions.

        1. In the UK 75% of cars sold still have a manual box.

          In the old days people bought autos for a smooth drive take-up with a torque converter and comfort reasons. With the early double-clutch gearboxes the opposite has been true.

          I had an ’07 Leon FR DSG and it was awesome away from the line in ‘GP’ mindset, but full of annoying ‘safety’ related interlocks for everyday driving, wasn’t fuel efficient and a bitch to set off gently and smoothly. DSGs are much better now, but it took best part of 10 years to get there. My Leon was however a hoot for the B-roads and I found nothing faster in roundabout competitions, just not what might appeal to the average auto buyer.

          Hence the adoption for supercars etc, is a perfect match.

        2. To be fair, not many cars these days actually have a manual clutch and mechanical gearshift.

          Most cars I have seen have manual clutch and mechanical gearshift. Maybe things are different in other countries, but in Europe that is the standard option.

    2. Not to mention they *did* have controls for certain things like the boost. They simply didn’t have them on the wheel. Not to mention, if he thinks it was easy, I’d love to see how some of these drivers handle a stick shift in the car for 2 hours and deal with the subsequent blisters they used to get ;)

    3. The things you take for granted in your road car are major issues in your racing car.
      The engines rev higher. The brakes only work when they are very hot. The tyres go to sleep going at the city speed limits.
      Drivers are always on the limit even when driving like their grand mothers.

    4. I dare say the cars are more complicated to control than what the average person does all day on their computer.

    5. you say that but I have quite a few buttons on my steering wheel and new cars are getting more and more controls on the steering wheel… so how would decreasing the buttons on an F1 wheel be more relative to a road car?

    6. Hm, the steering wheel of my road car gets buttons added with each upgrade to a new model too @omarr-pepper, it is in fact quite relevant, especially with the big screen for data and engine modes to choose from!

  6. just one of those things

    It’ll forever be the reason people know you, Pat… He moved past that, but Singapore certainly is a jewel of the future and there will always be that little asterisk next to the very first race in the country with the clarification: “Crashgate scandal”. And I don’t really like that…

    1. hmm – true, but maybe a *little* harsh.

      He definitely is a truly gifted engineer and one of the fulcrums of F1 engineering. It would be a shame to only remember him for that.

      * I was at that race – it was actually the only interesting thing that happened other than a Ferrari (massa?) leaving the pits with the fuel hose connected :)

    2. To be fair, I don’t really think of that anymore when I see him. Piquet crashed the car, not him. We’ve seen plenty of drivers go against team orders this year.

  7. Re the ICE development freeze, if 15% by weight is all that will remain frozen it would seem that everything bar the crankshaft or engineblock can be changed next year. I would prefer continuous engine development but if that is no-longer economically possible then I support the annual freeze/developement cycle currently in force, MB-AMG deserve the results they have achieved by building a better motor within the regulations.
    The only viable future alternative I might support would be a mid-season upgrade to allow engine suppliers to address deficiencies uncovered in the first 9/10 races. Anything but a return to artificiall equivalence.

  8. Love the crowd funding idea!

    I signed up as a supporter. I wish David Brabham the best of luck.

    1. Yes.. good to have the Brabham name back in racing.. and also pioneering a new way to go racing.

    2. I was checking out the site, and I would like to donate, but do you guys know if the payment we make is a one time thing, or are we basically signing up for a monthly donation? I was looking for fine print but I could not find anything that answered my question.

      1. @irejag Going from the way the perks are written and the following bit of text: “If you would like to simply show support for Project Brabham and keep up-to-date with our progress, you can invest just one pound. You won’t be participating in the experiences we have lined up, but your contribution helps confirm to our investors that we’re onto a good idea.”, I’d say it’s a one-time donation.

        IndieGoGo typically has one off investments, other sites such as Patreon provide a recurring investment to projects.

        1. Ok, good to know.

    3. @jaymenon10 – Cool!

      Would love to see Brabham back in racing.

    4. How much to hire Gordon Murray? :)

  9. It’s incredible how India’s Mars mission has cost less than annual budgets of F1 teams. It really is food for thought, not just for other countries which spend several-fold more to conduct such expeditions, but also for F1 teams, and F1 as a sport.

    1. While interesting, it is also very irrelevant. Apples and oranges.

      It pretty much reminds me of the stupid “we can go to the moon, but we can’t even… “.

      1. (That’s not an attempt to call you stupid at all, I hope you wont take it that way)

    2. I should think doing anything in India is cheaper than doing it in the West. However not even Force India want to base their F1 team there.

  10. Christian Horner must be very careful with what he says.

    1. Funny, isn’t it. A couple of races back we were still saying how Red Bull (or mostly Renault) had blown their chances with bad reliability, and here we have Horner in a position to say its their strenght vs. Mercedes.

  11. The Joe Saward blog article has ambiguity issues. The engine unfreeze does sound like a good idea, but at the same time as “a properly presented FIA cost cap regulation” would seem to be at cross purposes. How does spending less while increasing development at the same time work out? I tend to agree with the tweet by @keithcollantine .

    Further by Joe Saward re the cap: “That would benefit everyone in more than one way. The problem is that this requires political backbone and good presentation skills, neither of which the FIA has at the moment.” I don’t think the presentation is the problem. Commenters here at F1F have made some excellent presentations favoring a budget cap. It is the actual implementation if there were an actual agreement that are the problems.

    The one idea that he has that may have some merit is getting related manufacturers to have shared/rebranded engines as a basis for coming into F1 with their own team. Infiniti/Renault, Ferrari/Chrysler, etc. Even if it is the same parent company the different divisions could fund their own teams and share the engine with a rebranding. At least that could bring more manufacturers on board with their own budgets and maybe shared costs on engine development. No customer cars, just shared engines, which we already have.

    I don’t know, could work, just ideas…

    1. I understand his idea to be something along the lines of having more “competition” to actually get teams to sign up for a companies engines (compared to now having a “sellers market” for engines).

    2. In that sense, the article by Kate Walker nicely adresses the objections to changing the rules for engine updates. I too am not much for allowing the ones who did a worse job to suddenly be able to develop things during the season.
      And especially it should be clear that the cost for the engines should go down, not up.

    3. I wonder how much more it costs for, say, Williams to run a Mercedes engine with continual development compared to a frozen power unit? Joe’s opening sentence and Kate’s quotes suggests “a lot”. But it’s a whacking great upfront cost either way, and I suspect many smaller upgrades are made even during a freeze.

      Nobody seems interested in exploiting the sportscar regulations that allow F1-based engines in LMP1. Maybe the potential savings there aren’t worth the investment.

      I quite like the different brands idea – a useful way of separating different customers with the same power unit, e.g. the Infiniti engine is developed differently, or sooner, than the Renault one. Or Mercedes keeps the AMG branding just for the works team. And they’d all be reasonably competitive, so we won’t have underdeveloped engines banging and chuffing round at the back like 25 years ago.
      It was easy enough to understand rebranded engines last time they were around in the late 90s, with old Renault engines and customer Ferrari ones (but it got silly with engines being named after jumpers, laptops and fuel companies!)

  12. “But I think that someone needs to take Formula One and then needs to decide what the hell it wants from it and then we could all work together in a single direction.”

    Pat Symonds hit the nail on the head. We need to find out what F1 is so we can plan a future. Great interview with Pat.

  13. This quote

    Christian Horner: “Due to their shocking reliability, we are still in this championship.”

    – who would have thought Horner would be able to say that this year after winter testing!

    Just goes to show how hart it is to predict things in F1, and also shows how good a job Renault and Red Bull have done since then to improve the engine and chassis reliability.

    1. Hmmmm, maybe Button will change that, but before the Singapore grand prix, Mercedes power units were still very much in front on the reliability score:

      No Mercedes power unit had used a fifth component yet, unlike any other team, except for Caterhamn.

      An interesting thing is that the Energy Store (batteries) seems to be the least used component. While there of course isn’t any mechanical part that can die, batteries generally gets loses the ability to discharge quickly (due to their internal resistance rising) with use, so one would think they _wanted_ to use as new batteries as possible. But of course, they might be saving a pair for the only full-points race of the season…

      1. It’s not just the engine that has played its part in Mercedes’s problems though – there have been times when other components have caused problems, such as the wiring failure on Nico’s car in Singapore or the brake problems for Hamilton in Germany (although the latter issue does not seem to be exclusive to Mercedes). I think that it is those non engine related issues that Horner is taking a dig at, rather than the engine itself.

        1. Oh, I agree completely, the rest of the car certainly has issues. I was only commenting on the engine part of @BasCB‘s comment.

  14. I’m not sure I agree with the tweet about budget caps. Surely the reason why a budget cap hasn’t been imposed is because it is in the interest of certain teams (red, blue/purple and silver) not to have one?

    1. That’s an over-simplification. If you look at Mercedes, Red Bull, Williams, Ferrari, Toro Rosso and McLaren, they all have suppliers who are directly linked to their own business. Creative accounting would be a major problem, as well as deciding what counts as a team’s budget. Ferrari and Mercedes also develop an engine, with Ferrari basically developing it in the same building.

      The policing is another major problem, going by the team bosses. The actual cap is probably more of a problem than the idea of the budget cap as well; the top teams would be hurt if they can only spend 100 million, but where are Marussia and Caterham going to find that money?

      Frankly, I think it doesn’t solve all F1’s problems, but also is being approached in a poor manner. First you had the FIA just drawing their own plans, which ended up being a way to shock the establishment (and coax 3 new teams into F1) while the Strategy Group’s interests are simply not with a budget cap at all.

      I’m not saying I have the answer, all I’m saying is that the FIA and the Strategy Group don’t have it either. But there is an answer, and it does not involve slamming down the top teams, or leaving them out of negotiations.

  15. I agree that a budget cap is no “Felix Felicis”. By the way, there is no budget cap in the WEC, yet many car makers choose it over F1.

    I do not think that FIA can force F1 teams to accept a cost cap – we remember what happened the last time when an FIA president tried to do that. Jean Todt is a bit like Angela Merkel, he focuses on things he can do, not on things he would like to do. If the big teams strongly oppose the budget cap, then there is not much Todt can do.

    I think Mercedes, Red Bull and Ferrari would agree to a budget cap only if they believed that the existence of F1 was in serious danger because of unsustainable costs. Even in that case there would be fierce discussions about the size of the cap as well as policing it.

    1. I agree that a budget cap is no “Felix Felicis”. By the way, there is no budget cap in the WEC, yet many car makers choose it over F1.

      And like when the manufacturer’s entered F1 just over a decade ago the cost’s are going up big time in WEC & its becoming more difficult for the privateer’s to survive.

      Compare LMP1 now to a few years ago, Its almost exclusively manufacturer’s we have lost privateer outfits like Pescarolo.
      You have also lost most of the private engine builders which used to thrive in Sportscars, LMP2 is exclusively powered by Nissan because the builders like Hart & Judd among others who used to fill LMP2 as well as the privateer LMP1 teams can no longer afford to compete.

      For now WEC/Le Mans is thriving on having the big manufacturer’s, But like in the past at some point they will decide to leave & like when they left F1 they will leave WEC with cost’s having risen to the point where there will be no privately funded teams able to afford to come in & compete (Look at the mess it was in when Peugeot suddenly pulled out).

      1. Thanks for the interesting post, you make a very good point.

        There is no doubt that costs should be reduced in F1 and several other series, it is just that a budget cap is no panacea. Joe Saward is basically saying that it would lead to more manufacturers joining F1 but other series (WEC, DTM, WTCC) manage to attract manufacturers without a budget cap, while those manufacturers, who are in F1, are not exactly crying for a budget cap right now.

        The problem is that a manufacturer wants racing to be cost-effective but at the same time it wants to win more races than the competitors and it can do that only by spending more money than the competitors. For sure, a big budget is no guarantee for titles but a small budget is a guarantee for no titles. It means that “the big guys” themselves create conditions that make them leave the sport a few years later.

        Perhaps F1 should focus on teams like Force India and Williams (and WEC should focus on LMP2 teams), forget about manufacturers and try to attract privateers, who are more or less on the same level (so no Red Bulls either). But that solution has its disadvantages, too.

  16. “I’ve certainly moved on to a much better place [since Singapore 2008] and I think everyone who knows me knows that that wasn’t typical, just one of those things.” – Pat Symonds.

    I can’t believe what double standards people have. If I can recollect correctly: the season of 1989 – won by crash; the season of 1990 – won by crash; the season of 1994 – won by crash. No one questions morality of persons who won championships in an unsporting manner. However, mr. Symonds has to explain all over again that he’s not that kind of person when it comes to Crashgate. We all do mistakes but great things as well. I’ll always feel respect towards mr. Symonds because in his case great things surpass immeasurably one momentary lapse of reason.

    1. I think it is inaccurate to claim nobody questions the morality of persons who won Championships in an unsporting manner.

  17. Jonathan Sarginson
    25th September 2014, 10:21

    Just to change the subject, whatever happened to restrictions on fuel Kg/Hr..that caused such an outcry at the beginning of the season, and Ricciado’s disqualification?..have the teams got round it, or has it been quietly forgotten?…it’s still a major issue in the WEC…

  18. Wow, South Park was quite quick to mock up Brabham’s crowdfunding idea. Took them like 3 hours?
    By the way I hope it works, always good to see new WEC teams, and hope they reach LMP1 too.

Comments are closed.