Mercedes want Hamilton deal before season begins

62 comments on “Mercedes want Hamilton deal before season begins”

1. 

   SoLiDG (@solidg)
   11th February 2015, 0:07

   Happy to see those McLaren Honda’s been displayed in the original paint job, and by that I mean with the Marlboro sponsorship!
   1. 

      DaveD (@daved)
      11th February 2015, 1:20

      Aren’t you worried someone will get cancer from looking at the pictures? LOL
      1. 

         BasCB (@bascb)
         11th February 2015, 6:59

         I undserstand that the reason ron likes to take off old sponsors is more about what he mentioned about changing the livery now – who is paying @daved. In other words, now that Marlboro is not paying him, he does not want to run advertising for them.
         1. 

            Ginja42 (@ginja42)
            11th February 2015, 9:30

            Is it possible that it was in the contract that those cars keep the sponsor logos on them for as long as they still exist?
         2. 

            Dan
            11th February 2015, 12:25

            More likely to be because Tobacco advertising/sponsorship is banned in the UK/places where these cars are normally seen, but isn’t in Japan. May be wrong … just sumising ..
   2. 

      Mike (@mikeydcmtd)
      11th February 2015, 7:30

      I’ve noticed that the old mclarens have had their old tobacco sponsors on them a lot lately including the west mclarens
      Maybe Ron is trying to prove a point that the red and white livery is a marlboro livery not honda
   3. 

      banana88x (@banana88x)
      11th February 2015, 9:09

      I think, this “Marlboro” livery would have a huge potential in a marketing/merchandising perspective.
      1. 

         rushfan
         15th February 2015, 9:13

         Yeah,that’s a great idea,bring back tobacco advertising! It definitely needs glamourising what with the new plain packaging.
   4. 

      F1Bobby
      11th February 2015, 17:34

      Couldn’t agree more. Those McLarens sans-Marlboro branding just look wrong. McLaren are a bunch of berks for revising their own history.

      I take comfort in knowing that no amount of photoshopping in Woking will strip the Marlboro decals off my 1:18 scale MP4/6! (That was quite a nerdy sentence!)
2. 

   ivz (@ivz)
   11th February 2015, 0:43

   Why have the fuel flow limit when the 100kg fuel load limit is in place? Huge focus on making the PU very efficient, but it’s like forcing teams to use the same tyres and pitting on the same lap, it throws away the potential for more strategy. Why not make racing more interesting, allow teams to use the fuel the way they like? We could get some towards the end saving fuel while those with the opposite strategy close in on them at the end of the race.
   1. 

      Simon (@weeniebeenie)
      11th February 2015, 0:51

      Always thought this. An overall limit makes total sense but I don’t see who or what benefits from a flow limit.
   2. 

      NinjaBadger (@ninjabadger)
      11th February 2015, 0:57

      I don’t know if it would change race strategies too much from what we see already. Since, even with the fuel flow limit, we see cars saving fuel during the race. Unless events during the race lead to, effectively, a sprint race to the finish with high fuel loads.

      Although it would be interesting to see the teams “open the taps” for qualifying.
   3. 

      PeterG
      11th February 2015, 1:21

      @ivz here is a good article explaining why fuel flow is limited-
      http://www.racecar-engineering.com/technology-explained/f1-2014-why-fuel-flow-is-limited/

      I guess there is also the concern that if you just had the 100kg limit you would have a situation like in the 80s where drivers would turn there engine up for a time during the race & use lots of fuel but then have to slow down almost to a crawl towards the end desperately trying not to run out (Which in some cases they did).
      That was always one of the biggest complaints fans had in the 80s & was by far the biggest concern many fans raised a year ago.

      I guess there is also a concern that having no fuel flow limit & allowing drivers to turn the engines up briefly would also have a negative impact on the racing as a driver with his engine turned up having maybe a 150bhp or more performance advantage over a driver saving a bit of fuel would not exactly make for the most competitive of racing or the most interesting overtaking (It would make DRS passing look hard).
   4. 

      Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
      11th February 2015, 4:02

      @ivz I don’t care if it is 100 or 1000kg. The main reason why there’s a flow limit is to avoid dull races. If there was no flow limit, the pole man would start the race dramatically under fuelled, using the fact that he’s in front and then save fuel throughout the race, at any threat the race leader would turn the wick up. With a fuel flow limit you don’t ruin the chance of a bad qualifier from having a good result.
      1. 

         Michel S. (@hircus)
         15th February 2015, 15:28

         I rather agree with PeterG that it would make overtaking easier rather than harder (though both extremes are boring in any case). Remember that you don’t carry the race fuel load when qualifying anyway so there’s no need to be underfuelled to secure pole position.

         As for during the race, sure, an underfuelled car is lighter and thus would accelerate and corner better when you turn the wick up, but the cars behind will just pressure you for long enough until you have no choice but to throttle back just to finish the race, and then you’re SOL.
   5. 

      BasCB (@bascb)
      11th February 2015, 7:04

      Sigh. I will look up those same articles explaining it I guess (or just do it yourselves).

      Just think of the fuel flow limit as a more refined equivalent of restrictor plates and fiddling with boost rates to reach the same effect. It gives the FIA a way to limit max power.

      The fuel tank limit is no real limit, I think that even last year not all teams were using the full 100kg allowed at every track (before they also underfuelled to be lighter, that hasn’t changed at all). Its likely that with more efficiency, it will be easier and easier to make do with less fuel. But the FIA should still keep a check on max power output.
3. 

   Marc Schechter
   11th February 2015, 1:01

   “Many sponsors won’t touch grand prix racing with a bargepole. While there are many reasons why not, one of them is environmental concerns.”

   Is Formula One collateral damage in today’s progressive, “softer” world? Everything today has to be politically correct. God forbid a large corporation sponsor an F1 team, that would be awful for their brand. I can only imagine the scenario: oil company marketing execs in a board room saying, “McLaren! I wouldn’t title sponsor that team with a “bargepole” its bad for our new environmentally friendly image.”

   I am all for social change don’t get me wrong, and I am just having fun with the above, but is Formula One a refuge of a bygone era in society?
   1. 

      Corey
      11th February 2015, 3:23

      If this were the case, then pretty much every racing series except for Formula E would have problems getting sponsorship.
      1. 

         Marc Schechter
         11th February 2015, 3:34

         It is slowly trending that way!

         Formula E has a very marketable format moving forward. Think about how much more Formula E appeals to the younger generation of casual fans. They even play music during the race like it’s Mario kart lol!

         Look I love F1 and have for a long time. I’ve lurked on F1 fanatic for years. It’s an alarming trend. Who knows what will happen in the future. All we know is that, sponsors are drying up, costs are going up, and the grid size is going down.
         Formula E will take over by 2025 :)
         1. 

            pxcmerc (@)
            11th February 2015, 5:33

            no, the energy density of batteries won’t match petrol any time soon. And there is so much more performance to have with a car after it has lost about 100kg of fuel. vs batteries that never really go away. Besides Formula E doesn’t even have racing slicks and the sound it makes literally hurts my ears (that high pitched noise). I personally don’t know how people can stand that noise, you think people would be going tone def after about 20-30 minutes of it.
            1. 

               BasCB (@bascb)
               11th February 2015, 7:06

               The slicks comment is not really a fair one. Its a new concept from Michelin to get almost slick like competativeness as well as good rain performance out AND long range out of a single tyre @pcxmerc.
            2. 

               pxcmerc (@)
               11th February 2015, 21:10

               new concepts come out of marketing firms and PR departments all the time. An advertisement is an advertisement and should not be confused with good science.

               slicks will always be better in the dry, assuming all else is equal and you are not trying to throw the results. I don’t really know why you believe parroting a promotional line will grant you any credibility.
   2. 

      Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
      11th February 2015, 8:23

      I wonder if potential sponsors are put off more by headlines like these.
      1. 

         Marc Schechter
         11th February 2015, 20:00

         @pcxmerc: I want to make it clear, I love F1. I am fully aware of the substantial performance difference between F1 and Formula E cars. It’s huge, it’s not even comparable.

         My point is quite simple though. Formula E has to potential to be a hugely marketable platform. The general public does not car about slicks, or battery output etc. The younger generations want instant gratification. Street races are exciting there is no denying that. I’d hate to see F1 go, but it looks like a possibility as time goes on. Unless of course there are major changes…
         1. 

            tom
            11th February 2015, 22:14

            I wish people would stop trotting out the “what the younger generation wants” line. It’s patronising and makes you sound like Bernie Eccelstone.
            My little brother is 20 and he’s not into cars at all, but I can guarantee you that cheap instant thrills is NOT what him and his friends are after and wouldn’t turn them into racing fans.
4. 

   mantresx (@mantresx)
   11th February 2015, 1:04

   Completely agree with the COTD, and I will also add that even though F1 is expensive to watch at least it’s available almost everywhere in the world.

   Last year I tried to watch the race at COTA live (on regular TV, none of that online rubbish) and it was almost impossible to find and when I did they only showed the last hour or something!
   I don’t know if that’s the norm everywhere else but that’s just crazy.
   1. 

      PeterG
      11th February 2015, 1:28

      @mantresx In the UK/Europe, Eurosport does only broadcast parts of the WEC races.
      They show Le Mans in its entirety (Although most of the trackside cameras are not available during the night), But outside of that its usually just the final hour or so live & then a 50min Highlights program a couple days later.

      MotorsTV tend to show more of the race (And sometimes all of it live) depending on what other live programming they have that day. But the image quality on MotorsTV is usually worse than a LQ web stream which tends to put people off (Can’t remember the last time I watched anything on MotorsTV, Just looks awful on my 40″ HDTV).
      WEC used to offer a free Web stream on Dailymotion but that stopped last year & now you have to pay for it via there mobile app.
5. 

   Polo (@polo)
   11th February 2015, 3:09

   Apparently, Bernie is looking to create some kind of “second division” in F1 (much like what LMP2 is in WEC) in order to boost grid numbers, with some teams running 2013 Red Bulls with Mechachrome V8 engines:
   http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns29927.html
   However, the initial proposal has been rejected by the strategy group.

   I find the thought of it quite amusing – if we had about 3 teams running the 2013 Red Bull, then that would be 6 extra Red Bull cars, meaning that 10 of the cars on the grid would be Red Bulls! (if you include Toro Rosso ofc)
   “The Formula One Red Bull Championship, featuring Ferrari and other supporting acts”
   1. 

      Polo (@polo)
      11th February 2015, 3:15

      Of course, I imagine he means that new teams would run the 2013 Red Bull chassis, painted in different liveries by whichever team owns them, but still, the idea of 10 or so Red Bull cars is still an odd one. Imagine if they were indeed all owned by Red Bull…
      “Ricciardo is down in 13th after that disastrous pit stop..! *team orders* …and now Ricciardo is up into the podium positions!”
   2. 

      BasCB (@bascb)
      11th February 2015, 7:08

      Keith mentioned a tweet about that from German AMuS who ran the original article in yesterdays roundup.
   3. 

      Optimaximal (@optimaximal)
      11th February 2015, 12:30

      @polo I reckon the strategy group shot it down because they recognised it was another of Bernie’s blatant attempts to get his mate Flav (involved with Meccachrome) back into the sport. Said teams would likely find their way up to the strategy group eventually (number of seats increased due to larger grid etc.) and thus give Bernie more hands to raise when he next wants to try and push his sprinklers and medals into the rulebook…
6. 

   McG
   11th February 2015, 4:06

   Comment of the decade. Let’s stop all the moaning.
7. 

   Philip (@philipgb)
   11th February 2015, 5:42

   I think it’s clear the reason Hamilton have signed anything yet and that’s the two big unknowns of McLaren and Ferrari. The prospect of racing alongside Alonso or Vettel in competitive machinery will have him seriously intrigued as he will have no doubt in his own ability to take that challenge.

   Realistically Mercedes are still going to be competitive in 16 even if not dominant. But that question mark over 17 and beyond has got to have him pushing for performance clauses.

   I wouldn’t actually be surprised if Mercedes have none of it and this is his last year there though.

   I’m going to go out on a limb on the off chance I look a genius: Hamilton to Haas in 2016!
   1. 

      MattDS (@mattds)
      11th February 2015, 8:34

      But that question mark over 17 and beyond has got to have him pushing for performance clauses.

      I don’t really think that’s it. I think it’s just money. Hamilton trying to get more on the back of his WDC status, Mercedes trying to lower the figure on the back of them being dominant regardless of driver.

      Seems both sides are in “you need me more than I need you”-limbo. I think Mercedes’ argument is stronger at this moment.
      1. 

         David BR2
         11th February 2015, 13:39

         Seem to remember McLaren similarly undervaluing Hamilton’s contribution (and we’ll see how Ferrari fare without Alonso). Sure, if Mercedes are in the same place as 2014 or ahead, then Rosberg would be enough. But any closer to the chasing pack (Williams etc.) and you need someone with those extra racing skills. And that’s where Hamilton has leverage.

         If Hamilton wants to stack up some more championships, Ferrari would be a reckless move I think. Vettel can afford that ‘luxury’. McLaren is more of a prospect, but I guess that would mean Hamilton stalling the contract until we see just how much potential McLaren-Honda have. But then if they were a real prospect, would Alonso sanction Hamilton’s move alongside him? I completely doubt it. So. On that basis, Hamilton would be better looking at Red Bull maybe… I certainly think Newey would like the idea.
   2. 

      Optimaximal (@optimaximal)
      11th February 2015, 12:34

      @philipgb

      I wouldn’t actually be surprised if Mercedes have none of it and this is his last year there though.

      On what grounds can you make such a statement – neither party has really said much more than ‘negotiations are ongoing’.

      About the only conclusion you can draw is the time taken vs. how Nico ‘signed his deal’ quickly, which says more about how much of a raise Nico must have got to make it a no-brainer (of course, we don’t really know how long those talks took either).
      1. 

         Philip (@philipgb)
         11th February 2015, 12:52

         @optimaximal

         The grounds of absolute wild speculation.

         Rosbergs contract was finalised quickly for two reasons. No teams are banging at his door and he suits Mercedes purpose so long as they have a star driver.

         Hamilton on the other hand is far more complicated. He knows his financial worth and for the sake of a few million when the entire project costs hundreds of millions Mercedes won’t be arguing over money. Having the highest paid driver also lends them credibility in marketing terms.

         I can only imagine it’s performance clauses they can’t agree on. Hamilton has gone down the root of negotiating himself like Vettel, who smartly had such a clause allowing him to jump ship to Ferrari.

         Teams form rises and falls. Mercedes will still be a championship contender in 2016 but by 2017 McLaren, Red Bull and Ferrari could well have stolen a lead. He won’t want a commitment for 2018 yet if he’s smart which another 3 year contract would lock him into unless he has a performance clause.
8. 

   andae23 (@andae23)
   11th February 2015, 6:56

   Regarding COTD, I partly agree. I don’t think WEC can replace F1 because there are some things in F1 that simply don’t exist in WEC. From what I’ve experienced at F1 events and endurance racing events, the crowd is very different too. It’s difficult to describe, but the feeling I got was that people going to endurance events are fans of racing in general, whereas people going to F1 are more a fan of drivers or teams.

   As COTD mentions, six hours is a very long time and I get why this makes WEC inaccessible. It all depends on the way you watch WEC of course; I mean, I don’t have the time to sit down and watch six hours of endurance racing either, but I like having it on in the background while doing stuff like homework. If you want to follow WEC in exactly the way you follow F1, that requires a lot of commitment and time.
   1. 

      FlyingLobster27
      11th February 2015, 8:41

      COTD, unlike some other comment I read yesterday on Keith’s comment suggesting a sprint format, understands that there is a fundamental difference between WEC and F1: the ‘E’ actually means something. More to the point, the organisers of the WEC understand it, they have a clear view and defend the essence of their sport – which, sorry for the P1 drivers who regularly slam the Ams, includes having semi-pro teams and a positive attitude towards innovation.
      It seems safe to say though that those organising F1, if anyone has the slightest idea of who that is (for a start!), don’t have any of that. Engine format changes are proposed almost monthly, 2014 saw the most impressive raft of ridiculous rule suggestions ever made, the people at Place de la Concorde are governing in a way which is not dissimilar to the rest of France (which may also explain why the ACO have become so powerful in the Endurance world), and when someone mentions fuel economy, it’s “Hell, no, we want noise”. Meanwhile, Michelin has put up a trophy for that at Le Mans! See what I mean by “positive attitude”? And what was that article about environmenty-greeny stuff again?

      The racing may not be bad in F1, but the horrifically negative off-track atmos has turned me away from being a fan of it for the best part of a decade now, although, like many, F1 was my way into motor racing. That and the 1998 BTCC. Nowadays, I like nothing more than spending an afternoon doing what I do while listening to Radio Le Mans. Like @andae23, it’s more of a background thing, but I am nonetheless an Endurance fanatic before any other motorsport. And I believe I do fall into his category of “general racing fans” – there’s not a single driver or team in F1 I really like at the moment.
9. 

   Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
   11th February 2015, 7:03

   Agree with Cotd. As muchos as de hate the way f1 is run, there’s no real alternative to it.
10. 

    moblet (@moblet)
    11th February 2015, 7:28

    F1 Broadcasting’s tweet backfires when you do the sums.
    £1,712m for 760 games per season equals £2.25m per game
    £50m for 20 races per season equals £2.5m per race
    1. 

       GeeMac (@geemac)
       11th February 2015, 7:52

       I am so glad someone did the maths on that. Add to that the fact that football distributes the wealth more evenly between the teams, that they have financial fair play rules AND that teams that get relegated get “parachute payments” to help them get back into the top league and it again looks like other sports know more about how to mange their cash than F1 does.
    2. 

       Jethro (@jethro)
       11th February 2015, 8:14

       For the sake of fair comparison: Premier League TV licencing only allows the live broadcast of 168 games per season which pushes the cost per game up to £10.2m.
    3. 

       Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
       11th February 2015, 8:29

       @moblet @geemac @jethro Wouldn’t a more representative comparison be the total number of hours broadcast? In F1’s case, 20 race weekends is approximately 140 hours (seven hours per race weekend, four of which is practice) versus 380 one-and-a-half-hour Premier League football games for a total of 570 hours.

       So F1 footage costs £0.35m per hour and Premier League footage costs £3m per hour.

       Though I appreciate the more we get into this the more problems we’ll have with not comparing like for like.
       1. 

          moblet (@moblet)
          11th February 2015, 8:56

          @keithcollantine However you cut it I’m not sure why they’re drawing attention to the apparent fact that the EPL is more popular than F1 by at least an order of magnitude.
          1. 

             Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
             11th February 2015, 9:51

             @moblet I don’t see why they shouldn’t. Obviously it’s more popular, I’m interested to know how much more popular. This is a measure of that.
             1. 

                moblet (@moblet)
                11th February 2015, 10:30

                @keithcollantine I agree that it’s good hard data for mathematical analysis, it just doesn’t seem to be very good marketing practice. From a marketing perspective they’re saying “their product is thirty times better than ours!”
             2. 

                Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
                11th February 2015, 12:45

                @moblet Ah I see the confusion here: F1 Broadcasting doesn’t work for FOM or the FIA, so that’s not a concern!
          2. 

             Philip (@philipgb)
             11th February 2015, 12:59

             Doesn’t matter, premier league viewers can’t afford Rolex watches. F1 isn’t trying to appeal to the Carlsberg audience.

             (Partially intended as satire)
    4. 

       pH (@ph)
       11th February 2015, 13:47

       Here’s another take on the numbers.
       Premier League: £1,712m to support 20 teams and some overhead.
       F1: £50m to support about 10 teams and some overhead. And it is _some_ overhead :-(.
       1. 

          usukpam
          11th February 2015, 15:59

          @PH : Premier League – 1,712 billion Pounds
          F1 – 50 Million Pounds
          1. 

             pH (@ph)
             11th February 2015, 17:56

             Well that exactly was my point. If both sports shared equally, a Premier league team would be getting 17 times more.
11. 

    DavidS (@davids)
    11th February 2015, 7:52

    For the health of the sport, attracting sponsorship shouldn’t be focussing on the company that wants their logo on the side of the car, it needs to be about attracting manufacturers in the automotive industry willing to invest huge dollars in proving that they are the best. The incidental sponsorship from a bank or an alcoholic beverage may follow, but relying on that is fool-hardy.

    The rules need to be about encouraging free expression from manufacturers, so they can gain value from involvement in the sport by relating their products to Formula 1. Sooner or later, road cars are going to be all electric, and companies will have to have something that differentiates them from the rest. Being involved in the pinnacle of motorsport lends credibility to the brand. But it would be pointless if the rules are stifling and firmly rooted in the last century.
    1. 

       Optimaximal (@optimaximal)
       11th February 2015, 12:48

       @davids The problem with the free expression logic is that once one manufacturer latches onto the best plan (case in point – Mercedes), the rest will just copy them (case in point – Honda) and it all ends up looking very similar, which pretty much sums up the car industry in a nutshell.

       The only way to encourage unique development is to copy the WEC & introduce a tiered system of ERS/Fuel management. “Yes, your fancy expensive diesel can do impressively mad MPGs, but you get less electrical power as a result” etc. Of course, then you end up with logistical & sporting issues (like the Turbo vs. NA war of the 80’s)…
12. 

    CountryGent (@countrygent)
    11th February 2015, 9:26

    @TheBladeRunner I made largely exactly that point in the comment thread following Keith’s article on the matter. Comparing F1 with other forms of radically different motorsport by looking wistfully at their viewing figures is always a faulty comparison when different motorsports provide such different experiences for fans.

    The Sunday of the 2014 6 Hours of Silverstone boasted the largest European non-F1/MotoGP attendance I had ever seen, and yet what percentage of that same audience watched each of the 2014 WEC races, all six hours? I would be surprised if that figure exceeds 5%. My theory is that the open paddock, autograph sessions, terrific noise and multiple categories of the WEC provides fans with the atmosphere and experience of motorsport, but for the substance of motorsport, competition, F1 will never lose its appeal relative to more protracted and complex form of racing like that of the WEC. This was epitomized by the chat I had with a couple of fans in the Gulf AMR garage last April. They had been invited in for a tour, and when I spoke to me they confessed they’d “likely leave after an hour of racing”; they’d come for up-close look at the paddock, got Mark Webber’s autograph and were a happy pair of motorsport enthusiasts, but not what you would portray as endurance racing fanatics. And isn’t it indicative of F1’s stranglehold at the top-table of the fan’s preference list that the WEC’s profile rises as a former F1 frontrunner makes the switch?

    In essence, the WEC offers a very appealing package: a loud, cheap motorsport thrill complete with the autographs and paddock access that F1 so stringently denies. Does this mean people will stop watching Grands Prix and start watching 6 hour long endurance races on a regular basis? No.
13. 

    Salan
    11th February 2015, 14:51

    In reference to the original thread, “Mercedes want Hamilton deal before season begins” I thought Toto Wolff said there would be no current time constraint to add any pressure to either parties. So suddenly we have a time constraint inserted, wow! I really think it would be in the interest of both parties to postpone till mid season considering Hamilton is contracted until the end of the 2015 season. This would give both parties ample time for assessment and reflection whilst still leaving time for either party to extend or pursue other avenues. Doubt this will be the case though!!
    1. 

       Kimiwillbeback
       11th February 2015, 21:13

       The time frame for negotiations suits Mercedes, not Hamilton. Mercedes want to resign Hamilton before the season starts based on last years dominant car. This years car is probably dominant as well but you never know for sure. If this years Mercedes is less dominant Hamilton will be less desperat to sign with Mercedes and his demands will be higher.
       Furthermore Mercedes put pressure on Hamilton now. If the deal isn’t done in the near future Hamilton might start to feel a bit uneasy about who Mercedes might support more for 2015. It’s clear that Mercedes would prefer the driver who will be part of the team next year to be the WDC over a driver that might leave. Hamilton is under pressure and Wolff is definitely a tough negotiator.
       1. 

          pxcmerc (@)
          12th February 2015, 18:56

          If Ferrari have something to show Mercedes will need to pay Lewis a lot more, I think Lewis would probably be happy with his current going rate in pounds (not euros) and at least equal support/reliability. I think Lewis is right to hold out just long enough to see what Ferrari have in the bag and see how Merc behave with him and his car, at least for a few rounds. I don’t think Mercedes should push for anything earlier, otherwise they might end up with Nico and losing next year to Ferrari.
       2. 

          pxcmerc (@)
          12th February 2015, 18:58

          however, I think Lewis will have to pretty much walk on water till contract negotiations are settled. So hopefully hes even more focused this year and hes ready to break out some stellar performances in order to differentiate himself from his teammate.
          1. 

             Asanator (@asanator)
             13th February 2015, 14:02

             Well, the last time he and Nicole broke up he ended up driving his McLaren into everything and everyone!
14. 

    Chad Jonathan (@)
    11th February 2015, 16:24

    Such a good read. I’m excited for this season to get started, and this was a great summarizing piece in my opinion. http://www.junkcarbuyerskalamazoo.com junk car buyers kalamazoo really hypes you up.
15. 

    SauberS1 (@saubers1)
    11th February 2015, 22:41

    I don’t want more Korea GP.

Comments are closed.