“Nothing being done” to stop teams dropping out

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Sauber team principal Monisha Kaltenborn says nothing is being done to bring costs down in F1 despite increasing fears more than one team could drop out before the start of next year.


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

F1 set to face ‘drastic’ changes (ESPN)

Monisha Kaltenborn: “There’s nothing being done and I think that some team principals, apart from myself, have said that something drastic needs to happen and then we’ll react.”

F1 looking to make cars harder to drive (Autosport)

“It is understood that the main areas that will be investigated are tyre grip, car dimension, and aerodynamic performance.”

Fully committed (F1)

Manfredi Ravetto: “This is a small team which was structured as a mega, state-of-the-art, supersonic, top team – and it cannot work like this. You have to be realistic.”

Caterham boss rallies team for 2015 push (Adam Cooper’s F1 Blog)

“They were also told that work on the 2015 car continues with a further wind tunnel session at Toyota starting Monday and we will be on the grid in Melbourne in 2015 if we all pull together.”

Max absolves over 180 miles in FR 3.5 test (Max Verstappen)

“The test was part of Max’s preparation for his F1 debut. ‘The car has carbon brakes, similar to an F1 car so today I had the chance to get used to them.'”

Singapore Grand Prix video highlights (F1)

Includes new radio messages from Esteban Gutierrez and Sergio Perez.

Force India will ‘fight like hell’ (Sky)

“When you race with the big boys and you get ahead of them, it gives you that extra bit of a high, doesn’t it?”

What will Alonso do? (MotorSport)

“‘Without Fernando Alonso Ferrari would be nowhere…’ said Niki Lauda, and then there was this from Giancarlo Minardi, for whose little team Fernando made his F1 debut back in 2001: ‘If Ferrari lose Alonso, it will be a disaster for the team, and it will last for years…'”

Motor racing and politics (Joe Saward)

“The FIM, which governs motorcycle racing, showed how it should be done back in the spring when the Ukraine Crisis first began. It immediately cancelled a Superbike race in Moscow but said that the sport would return as soon as the politics were out of the way. It was neat, efficient and little reported.”

Lego Speed Champions (Brickshop)

Forthcoming new Lego sets include a Ferrari F14 and McLaren pit stop. Thanks to Scott for the tip!



Comment of the day

Has the introduction of DRS affected our appreciation of drivers like Kamui Kobayashi?

If you go back to his first races at Brazil and Abu Dhabi in 2009 the biggest reason he stood out was because he showed good racecraft, He showed an ability to overtake and defend and that carried over in 2010.

Since then with DRS, Nobody really stands out any more because now everybody can easily overtake in the DRS zones.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

No F1 Fanatic birthdays today

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

Lewis Hamilton won the Singapore Grand Prix five years ago today after Nico Rosberg picked up a penalty by crossing the pit lane exit line.

Image © Sauber

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.

58 comments on ““Nothing being done” to stop teams dropping out”

  1. I hope some more of the top teams start to speak up about a fairer distribution of wealth, although I don’t expect it. It’s in their long term interest that teams like Sauber don’t pull out of F1.

    Look at the premier league for football and its clear that it can work, with the prize money much evenly distributed but the league as a whole can be marketed so well that the top teams benefit from that anyway.

    For example, a healthy grid means a more attractive F1 as a whole and maybe could help McLaren get a sponsor.

    1. @john-H Actually it would be in the bigger teams best interest if 3 teams dropped off for next year. The 100 year contract the FIA has with FOM stipulates there must be at least 20 cars on the grid. If 3 teams go bust there will be only 18 cars on the grid in Melbourne next year. With teams already having indicated (Boullier) that it is too late to build/have a 3d car for next year that would mean the FOM (i.e. Ecclestone) will be in breach of contract, in which case the FIA will be able to reclaim the commercial rights and set new tv deals in place themselves and be able to distribute the money more equally. So most likely in that scenario the teams would get a lot more money from the commercial side of the sport.

      1. Ecclestone in breach of contract – I can’t see that happening but I’m willing to be proven wrong! I’m sure there would be ways to get the top teams fielding 3 cars if it means FOM holding onto the commercial rights. The question is therefore, is having teams fielding 3 cars actually healthy for the long term of the sport, to which I would argue no – for the reasons given by stefmeister yesterday.

      2. Really, who signs a 100-year contract? Maybe for something like the Panama canal, but for F1?

      3. The things is should it come to that point, Bernie will just offer the larger teams more money to run a 3rd car and we all know that will be that. The thought of the 100 year contract being cancelled is great, but can’t see it happen.

  2. When we talk about the points system everyone always says the difference between second and first should be bigger than the 7 points we got now. Then when we talk about the prize money where the gap is bigger it is not how we like it. In both cases somebody wins and somebody comes second, third, etc…

    I would not lose interest in F1 if Sauber, Caterham or Marussia were to stop F1. I understand F1 must take care of it’s teams but I don’t think they should adapt so much that it becomes financially ‘easy’ to run an F1 team. I’d love to buy a Porsche but they are not going to lower their prices for me. They could give me extra options whilst I put in an extra effort to get the money.

    1. Running an F1 team shouldn’t be “easy”, but that doesn’t mean things are working well at the moment!

      My issue is how much FOM takes from the earnings. The financial model is terrible…the tracks pay for the “honour” to host a race and can only recruit their money through ticket sales, because the advertising money all goes to FOM. FOM then include in the contract an annual price rise for the races, with the price rises exceeding the rate of inflation (certainly here in the UK). So, the price rises get put on the tickets and they become unaffordable…then you see some tracks where they can’t fill the stands.

      Then look at the teams…they pay to enter the series and they also pay to design, build and maintain the cars. They pay for the drivers and the rest of the staff. And they get advertising revenues to pay for this, and if they’re good enough, they get prize money. But the prize money has already had 50% taken off it by FOM.

      My issue is that FOM take at every stage – FOM should either take 50% of the earnings from the tracks and the media, but not charge an entry fee, or it should charge a much higher entry fee but not take from the track/media income. FOM should also allow the tracks to sell their own advertising space.

      But none of this will happen until Bernie Ecclestone retires, end even then it will take a long time to change. And Ecclestone seems unlikely to ever retire…

      1. Bernie is 83, he’s no spring chicken. He’s got more unbareable with age.

    2. The 25 – 18 – 15 – 12 – 10 – 8 – 6 – 4 – 2 – 1 scoring system in use today is a bit skewed towards 2nd place over the “traditional” (although that term is debatable) 10 – 6 – 4 – 3 – 2 – 1 scoring system used until Schumi started dominating in the early 2000’s. A closer fit to the “good old” system would be 25 – 15 – 10 – 7 – 6 – 5 – 4 – 3 – 2 – 1 so that race wins and podiums actually count for more relatively speaking. Better yet, I think every classified position should get points right down the grid so that the battle between the minnows can be more easily determined than has been done in the past few years (a finish for 12th vs lots of 13th place finishes, etc.). Perhaps negative points for finishing outside the top 10?

      1. @abbinator the idea about every car crossing the finish line getting points is actually a worthy thought. I see it this way, where all cars crossing finishing line at 11th spot and beyond get .5 points, and chances are that all finish a race and get equal points. In the following races, when one car fails to finish wont rake in points, and that way they would go down the tally – forcing them to try hard to ensure they are reliable. At the end of season, a reliable car can rake in 10 points at the max, 20 for the team. But this will be something that everyone can get. So make it interesting by awarding negative points -.5 to the cars finishing outside 18th and those who dont finish the race get -1.

        the only con to the idea i think, and is very important, this should not stop smaller teams from trying to score more points. I cant think of anything else, but am sure there are different ways to look at this and even if this appears practical?

  3. Dear geniuses of F1:

    Any vehicle is difficult to drive when its being driven on the limit. The impression that these cars are not difficult to drive is born out of the fact that the drivers are having to manage fuel, manage componants, and manage tyres that flake away after 10 laps pushing on them.

    1. +1 I genuinely believe this should be quote of the day. The cars are only appearing easy to drive, because the current formula means they are not being driven on the limit.

      Even then it is nonsense though. It is still incredibly hard to manage tyres and fuel, as you can hear from listening to the post race driver interviews. It is not easy, it’s just not entertaining. Seeing someone eeek out 5 extra laps does not look as impressive as them finding an extra 3 tenths on a lap.

      1. Well said.

    2. Well said.

  4. Strangely after 7 years McLaren suddenly realized or remembered that a certain Fernando Alonso drove for them back in 2007, during that period there was no mention to Alonso’s name in their website, so they decided to dedicate a new profile for him on their website which contains some beautiful words about him.
    It seems that Honda is really pushing for Alonso, Suzuka will be interesting… BTW the silly season started late this year.

    1. Formula Indonesia (@)
      27th September 2014, 10:37

      McLaren are pushing hard for Alonso. in my opinion, he can raise McLaren mentality and regain their place on top teams, that’s why McLaren chase him since late 2013

    2. @tifoso1989 Alonso to McLaren is a done deal. He’s only going back because Honda wants him, otherwise there is no way Ron Dennis lets him back there after 2007.

      1. maybe Ron Dennis has come to his senses after seeing his golden child Hamilton has not got any better since that year, while Alonso has been the most consistently great driver in the sport since then.

        1. It’s incredible that you always have to include Hamilton in every article even if there isn’t any particular news on him. I think you have some serious issues in your head and should seek some help.

  5. The FIA are looking to make F1 cars harder to drive? How about actually increasing performance for once. Surely we can go back to V10’s now that they’ll be much more fuel efficient? :D

    1. V10’s are not a formula the engine manufacturer’s have much interest in.

      Don’t forget that the engine manufacturer’s had input in the formula we now have as they all wanted smaller capacity turbos with all the energy recovery systems. The initial concept was 4-cylender turbos but Ferrari didn’t like that formula so after further discussions it was changed to the V6 turbo formula we now have.

      Some of the same engine manufacturer’s were involved in the discussions about Indycar’s engine formula for 2012 & they also went with V6 turbos again based off the input from those manufacturer’s.

  6. Regarding degree of difficulty of driving the cars, I would think one place they could start would be to relax the regs a little on numbers of components allowed before penalties kick in, so that drivers can actually push the cars more and not just be passengers monitoring systems. Same with the tires. They need to allow the drivers to be able to push their cars to the limits. I don’t understand DR’s comment at all…don’t make the cars faster as that will increase dirty air. Seems very unF1. How about further reducing aero dependency so that dirty air will less negatively affect a chasing car? Besides…if they keep DRS then why would DR be concerned about dirty air? Put another way, he should be less concerned about it than drivers were in the past.

    Clip their wings, more stable tires, less conservation ie. less endurance racing and more sprint, and the drivers will have more of a race car in their hands than a moving science experiment that sees them not pushing today because of the consequences that can have for the next race.

    Sadly as long as there is only one tire maker, the mandate to make tires that the drivers hate because they can’t be pushed other than for very small windows of time, won’t change much. If they make tires that allow the drivers to actually push their cars to the limit, to the point where they the drivers are taxed, then those tires won’t be nearly the story of F1, and so won’t get talked about as much, which will remove the impact Pirelli would experience for being in F1. So they should reintroduce a competing tire maker and combine that with much reduced aero dependency so that the racing isn’t processional. Better tires means more confidence a driver has in his grip level in order to attempt passes…and more attempts than just a few before the tires are shot. The passes that are more apples-to-apples would increase too, with fewer of them being easy passes due to one guy’s tires being done and therefore him being an easy target.

    1. The problem with having 2 tyre manufacturers is that 1 will always suit the circuit better than the other, leaving half the teams at a disadvantage. If we wanted multiple suppliers we’d need at least 4 of them, and preferably more, so each of the bigger teams could enjoy the sort of relationship Ferrari had with Bridgestone where the tyres were specifically designed to compliment the chasis and suspension. But this isn’t that likely to happen as it’d be very expensive.
      I’d just ask Pirelli to start making the type of tyres they’d like to make, they make great racing tyres for various other series and given the choice I reckon they’d much rather make tyres with more grip, durability and better stability that could allow drivers to push them harder and for longer than the current tyres they’re required to make.

      Couldn’t agree more about the aero and engines, getting rid of more of the downforce and relaxing the rules relating to the life expectancy of parts would get my vote.

      1. Hmmm…I don’t think it is a given that one makers tires would suit certain tracks, disadvantaging the others…each maker would be wanting their tires do do well at all venues. If you are right though, that’s the kind of thing to bring variety to the show of the type many wouldn’t mind.

        And you are missing my point regarding Pirelli. They don’t want to make tires with more grip, durability and better stability, even though they can and do in other series, because then tires won’t be the story of F1, and so won’t get enough mention for Pirelli to feel any marketing impact from being in F1.

        1. Which is exactly what Bridgestone also cited as their reason why they were withdrawing from F1 – they were so marginalised that they were getting virtually no publicity from the sport.

          @robbie, one of the other concerns over multiple tyre manufacturers is the tendency in the past for certain tyre manufacturers to favour particular teams over others, therefore effectively help lock in a competitive advantage for a single team. Bridgestone were pretty clear in their bias towards Ferrari, whilst Michelin was accused of becoming increasingly biased towards Renault as time went on.
          That tendency for favouritism teams was one reason why even the relatively large teams prefer having a single supplier – in a tyre war, it’s only one or two teams that tend to benefit and other teams tend to lose out in the longer terms.

          1. @anon You are right about what happened with Bridgi and Michelin, but I think that was a unique situation and circumstances are different now. In the MS/Ferrari era where there was no expense being spared for MS to win titles, particularly to end the Ferrari WDC drought, unlimited testing was going on with Ferrari particularly having a huge advantage in not only having their own track to test at, but with Bridgi with a setup right there too. It was all about MS and anybody on Bridgies was driving MS’s tires. Michelin had to try to follow suit in order to compete against that elephant in the room, but of course didn’t have quite the opportunity to have a setup right at one team’s private test track. Bridgestones response when teams complained was that it only made sense for them to back the team/driver who was most likely to win the Championship(s).

            Today there is not nearly the opportunity for the same thing to happen again. With the drastically reduced testing, to the point where Pirelli blew it completely a few years ago, and were only saved by the fact that they are the only game in town, the same kind of bias toward specific teams would likely be unable to happen. I think too, now that we have seen Pirelli build specific mandated tires, that tells me that two makers could also be mandated to keep their tires within certain parameters throughout the season. This as opposed to what was going on with Bridgi/Ferrari with constant upgrades and likely tweaking going on by the venue.

            So, sure, with competing tire makers there is a risk of favouritism toward specific teams, but I’m not sure that risk is great enough to be concerned about anymore. There seems to me to be a greater risk when one tire maker is there with mandated tires the drivers hate and that limit the cars from being pushed, too. Let alone making the racing a lottery, let alone them getting away with exploding and delaminating tires, whereas Michelin was raked over the coals for their tires not being able to handle one corner of one venue of the whole F1 circuit. Michelin was held hugely accountable for what turns out was a thimble-worth of error vs. Pirelli with their monopoly. I lean more toward accountability and competition and away from monopoly in the pinnacle of racing and competition.

  7. I wonder whose lap is laid on top of the Senna lap? It looks like a more modern one, you can see how much more speed is carried in certain sections, and the s/f looks in a different place, along with the last chicane and possibly 130R.

  8. Here’s an idea to save money and make the sport more attractive to compete in: Stop with all the electronics.
    No radio’s, no computers, just the bare essentials to make the engine turn over. And for heaven’s sake, stop ‘saving’ fuel. It’s ridiculous to see teams who spend millions per year ‘saving’ fuel.

    1. So basically you want them to take away anything that every other series has so that F1 is no longer the pinnacle of Single seater/open wheel racing?

      This push to drive technology out of F1 is pathetic!
      Technology is something which many fans actually appreciate about F1 & a big part of why F1 is more popular than all the other open wheel categories around the world.

      If F1 ever did ban all the electronic technology I’d stop watching F1 & start following the other categories more closely.

    2. Why not take it a step further. Lets get a McLaren, Ferrari and Lotus from the 1960s/70s as the basis. Define no wings allowed, no use of groundforce. Make it fit for engines between a V6 (Turbo) and a V12, take away powersteering and automatic gearboxes and then let newey design a car going from this base, with added roll bar, front and side crash structures as well as a safetycell.

      Put it up in the simulator to show what its like, give it to drivers to test and when they come back saying that they can do a maximum of 25 laps of Singapore before the time limit of 2 h is up, its done.

      THat could then be a nice addition to the entertainment / show of F1. But anyone who looks at it and compares it to current road cars must see how crazy it is. When all and every road car allows almost more than what can be done in F1, is made more comfortable and safe to drive including active elements to help, support or warn the driver, why would anyone think I want to see dinosaurs race as the top rank of motorsports?
      Even NASCAR upgraded to more modern equipment.

  9. Kobayashi, Hamilton etc. have all been hit by the introduction of DRS. Being able to pass where others couldn’t really gave these junior champions an edge over guys who struggle to pass at all, like Chilton.

    1. Indeed.

      I remember when Montoya came into F1 back in 2001 I became a fan of his because i liked his aggressive approach when it came to overtaking, While everyone else was busy saying overtaking was impossible JPM was busy showing that it was possible & along the way he pulled off some sensational pieces of overtaking.

      It was the same with Hamilton, He pulled off some great overtaking moves in the Pre-DRS era & I always appreciated his aggressive style & overtaking ability & it was the same with Kobayashi & others.

      In the DRS-era nobody really stands out anymore, You don’t look at any 1 driver as been a great overtaker now because everybody can overtake & most of the position changes happens via DRS with most of those been too easy.

      The skill of overtaking has been lost & overtaking itself is been devalued. Likewise the art of defensive driving is dying as there is no way to defend against an easy DRS pass.

      Drivers now spend there junior years learning good racecraft, Standing out for been good overtakers only to get to F1 & not need many of those skills thanks to DRS.

      People within F1 are running around trying to figure out why its popularity is declining & there looking at radio restrictions, telemetry bans & all that…. But is it any coincidence that its popularity started to decline when DRS & the high-deg tyres came in? Perhaps most racing fans actually want to see proper racing, Maybe they want to see good defensive driving with drivers actually having t fight there way past other cars with big speed/performance advantages thanks to DRS or bubblegum tyres.

      I find it funny how teams go on about wanting to make the cars more challenging to drive when they seem perfectly happy with taking the challenge of overtaking away & seem concerned only with the quality of passes each race while ignoring the quality & challenge aspect of it.

      The outrage over GP2 adopting DRS says everything & I expect GP2’s figures to be in sharp decline from next year also as fans turn away from the non-racing DRS generates.

      1. COTD. Look no further.

    2. @fastiesty, KK more than any other driver is a victim of the Pirellis, his brilliant ability to throw his car sideways past an opponent and then catch the slide and drive on is something the Pirellis just can’t survive.

  10. Catherham’s Manfredi Ravetto says that “P10 is of highest importance to us”.

    If you look at the prize money structure that is logical. For Catherham ending 10th vs 11th this year will cost them possibly some $49m!. They will not only lose the $14m linked to ending 10th this year, but also a bonus of some $35m for not ending in the top-10 in 2 of the last 3 seasons (they still achieved that last year).
    It will be hard for any team to cover a variance of $49m, but surely lethal for them.

    Interestingly, Red Bull ‘only’ loses $11.5m by ending 2nd this year versus 1st in the previous seasons.

    This just shows how skewed (shrewd) Bernie’s prize money scheme is.

    1. Also, Sauber would not lose as much as Caterham. Possibly the best result for F1 would be Caterham 10th and Sauber 11th!

  11. I doubt Ferrari will be hurting for good driver for very long if Alonso leaves. Look at how many have been swayed by starry eyes over thoughts of driving for the prancing horse. Is it smart? Probably not, but Giancarlo Fisichella left an up swinging FI to finish his career languishing at the back in scarlet red. Such is the draw of a moth to flame…

    1. @joey-poey Indeed. Hulk wouldn’t turn down a reliable pay check, and Bianchi would love to drive for Ferrari. Not bad to have as back up options!

      1. and which number did both of them pick as their first choice…?

        1. @bullfrog 27 and 28…. :D also, Bianchi could replace Raikkonen’s 7 if he replaces him..

  12. If they want the sport to become harder for the drivers give them more power to handle and more downforce but keep DRS to make sure the casual fan is happy.

    1. More power yes, But I’m not sure about adding more downforce as that woudl just get us back to where we were 10 years ago where the racing wasn’t brilliant due to the high downforce.

      I’d also point out regarding DRS that its introduction has not seen casual fans coming to the sport, Its actually just been turning everybody off.
      Look at Germany, Since DRS introduction in 2011 the Tv figures have been in freefall as it has just about everywhere else & that includes regions where the TV situation has not changed.

      DRS has clearly not only failed to produce excitement but also failed to attract new viewers & turned existing viewers away from F1.

      1. That’s why I said they could keep the DRS which would aid overtaking if the cars had more downforce.

        The viewing figures may have dropped in Germany but you’re only speculating stating it’s the introduction of DRS that is the cause, have you got any sources claiming that?

  13. Considering that only 4 out of 11 teams are financially sound on a level where they can compete for wins – should already ring all the alarm bells. Cost control is clearly not enough and as Kaltenborn said – if they don’t do anything drastic like share the profits more evenly and not solely on championship points then the 3 car idea isn’t just an idea floated by Bernie it will become reality sooner or later.

  14. Here’s an idea to make the cars more difficult to drive:
    Give them tyres that allows the drivers to push 100%
    Get rid of the stupid 100kg/h fuel use limit

    1. No tyre in the world can be pushed 100% the whole time, tyre conservation will always be a part of F1.

      1. I think you misunderstood what I meant. Instead of designing a tyre thats suppose to last X amount of laps they should design one that will allow drivers to push. Listening to Massa having to drive like a “grandma” just so he can make the tyres last is silly. Im just saying if the car’s overall speed is increased that will lead to more errors which will make these cars harder to drive

        1. These tyres could be pushed, the only reason they don’t is because they don’t supply them with enough of them.

      2. any tyre that can’t be driven hard for 300km is a rubbish tyre, historically, tyre conservation has been an insignificant part of f1.

    2. I can’t see them getting rid of the fuel flow restrictions given how thats something the engine manufacturer’s wanted & how Mercedes & Honda felt the restrictions should be lower than 100kg/hr.

      It’s been said a few times that of the manufacturer’s involved in the discussions (Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault, Honda, BMW, Toyota & VW Group), Only Ferrari spoke out against the fuel flow limit, The rest either agreed with the 100kg/hr figure or wanted it to be lower.

      1. Rather than getting rid of the fuel flow limit, get rid of the engine homologation rules for a few years that way the engine manufacturers can focus on making the engines more fuel efficient whilst getting more power out of the fuel available. It seems ridiculous to me that we have this engine rule change and fuel flow limit to enhance the sports green credentials and drive the focus towards fuel efficiency and then stop the manufacturers from actually developing the engines which would inevitably lead to more and more efficient engines. This technology will not only benefit F1 but WOULD filter down to the wider automotive industry benefiting all.

  15. There are other ways of being able to make modern F1 cars go faster and in turn make them more difficult to drive without going down the route of massive aerodynamic dependence.

  16. I agree with COTD to be honest.

    The introduction of DRS has lessened the need for drivers to be aggressive & really go for an overtaking move as we used to see from drivers like Kamui Kobayashi, Juan Montoya, Lewis Hamilton & others.

    You compare Hamilton coming up behind Kimi Raikkonen at Monza in 2007 & throwing it up the inside brakes locked for 2nd place to how he came up behind Vettel, Pushed his DRS button & got by without any issue & it just makes me depressed at how the excitement overtaking moves used to generate has for the most part gone.
    No overtake for the lead should ever be as easy as many have been in the DRS times.

    1. I also think about GP2 introducing DRS next year.

      The past 2-3 years Jolyon Palmer (Among others) have been great fun to watch because there great racers & have shown a natural ability to overtake.

      Next year when DRS is introduced whats the point in pulling some of those great, opportunistic & genuinely exciting overtaking moves if you just need to wait until you get to the DRS zone & get by with ease?

      Its quantity over quality & I just don’t like that, Its a big part of why my 35+ year love of F1 has been in sharp decline since 2011 & why i’ve turned a dozen DRS-fest’s off Mid-race.

  17. Keith,
    sorry to post in the wrong place, but I am so excited about the rumors that Alonso is going to Mclaren. There must be some truth to this…??This is from a 64 year old who has been following F1 since 1962. This sport still gets me excited.

  18. I would like that Sauber can race in the next year too.

  19. I don’t see why DRS is needed. The ban on refuelling in 2010 was a big help to getting overtaking done on the track and not in the pits. Of course Bahrain and Abu Dhabi were boring but that doesn’t necessitate adding DRS.

    Originally, the 2014 regs included even more aero restrictions and the addition of ground effects. I preferred it that way, with aero dependence being reduced and ground effects compensating for the loss.

    But hey, DRS is cheaper, so let’s go with that.

Comments are closed.