In the round-up: Mercedes team boss Toto Wolff says the team have learned from last year how to keep the rivalry between Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg under control.
Links
Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.
Hamilton-Rosberg rivalry no problem (BBC)
"We've learned a lot from last year, learned a lot from working with each other, analysing our mistakes and we will be trying to do things better in 2015."
Bahrain uncertain region is ready for another F1 race (Crash)
"From our perspective, we are not sure whether the region is ready for another F1 race and we can only really speculate on what that race might look like and how it may be different."
F1 drivers told to keep a lid on helmet changes (Reuters)
"The FIA is keen to have stability so people can identify who is in the car. The new phenomenon of drivers changing helmet every few races isn't helping."
"The FIA explain the latest legislation by saying it's to improve the promotional appeal of the sport. While it's a topic that urgently needs attention, this move is cosmetic in every sense. It's sticking an Elastoplast over a gaping wound that requires major surgery."
Red Bull & Adrian Newey: Is Le Mans on their radar? (Motorsport)
"The company was approached by the Lola Group as recently as 2011 with a mooted customer programme but the proposal didn't get past an initial meeting. But it fired a flame in the minds of some big players, a creative flame that is proving difficult to extinguish."
Does Humble Limpet Hold Key To Future F1 Cars? (Sky)
"This discovery means that the fibrous structures found in limpet teeth could be mimicked and used in high-performance engineering applications such as Formula One racing cars, the hulls of boats and aircraft structures."
Tweets
It's time for a #smile… Here you go: Smile, #SauberC34! #F1 #SauberF1Team #ME9 #FN12 pic.twitter.com/Pdfaih1J0g
— Sauber F1 Team (@SauberF1Team) February 18, 2015
In 18 years in #F1, can't remember a quieter off season. Calm before the storm?
— Kevin Eason (@easonF1) February 18, 2015
#F1 has its smallest grid at the start of a year since 1967 but don't worry, here comes the @FIA to ban drivers changing helmets…
— F1 Fanatic (@f1fanatic_co_uk) February 18, 2015
“@henryhopefrost: Thank god for that! http://t.co/JrJVaWopSt via @autosport” mmm bigger issues than this going on…#jobworths 😤👬🍷.
— Mark Webber (@AussieGrit) February 18, 2015
As Driver&Designer; no one shall put my helmetdesign in a BOX of rules. It shall remain our free right of expression pic.twitter.com/IHeJRuZGaO
— alex wurz (@alex_wurz) February 18, 2015
How the @FIA Sporting Regulations are written: http://t.co/K9yLtdxHuB pic.twitter.com/7RMGYpiVhA
— F1 Fanatic (@f1fanatic_co_uk) February 18, 2015
How many superlicence points this week's #F1 test drivers have: @JolyonPalmer: 56 Wehrlein: 10 @Susie_Wolff: 0 More: http://t.co/3gS8PyDVXR
— F1 Fanatic (@f1fanatic_co_uk) February 18, 2015
- Find more official F1 accounts to follow in the F1 Twitter Directory
Comment of the day
Do I detect a smattering of sarcasm?
I am a big enthusiast for this ban. As we all know helmet changing has lead to the direct drop of viewing figures and terrible racing. I don’t understand it took them so long to even rethink this ridiculous rule that should have never been there in the first place. This will also impact the team cost in a good way as they will no longer spend some several thousand euro’s on helmet and reserve helmets. Good job FIA!
PorscheF1 (@Xtwl)
Snapshot
V10 and V8 Ferrari powerplants on display at the Museo Ferrari.
From the forum
Happy birthday!
Happy birthday to Phildick and Looseasagoose!
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
Happy birthday to former F1 driver Stephen South who is 63 today. He failed to qualify for his single F1 appearance at Long Beach in 1980, standing in for the injured Alain Prost at McLaren.
Later that year a major crash in Can-Am cost him part of his leg, curtailing a promising career.
Lee Monahan
19th February 2015, 0:21
The new helmet regulations “to improve the promotional appeal of the sport” is on of the craziest things I have heard in quite awhile, only superseded in ignorance and foolishness by today’s announcement by the Obama administration that the US will try Tweeting more in an effort to fight ISIS through ideology.
Chad (@chaddy)
19th February 2015, 4:17
Haha, nice
petebaldwin (@)
19th February 2015, 10:56
OK so I get all the criticism of the FIA in this comments section because they weak, ineffective and generally, not fit for purpose however I am fully behind this rule change!
When I see some old footage of Senna, it is instantly recognisable as him as is Prost, Alesi, Hill, Schumacher and so on. Just seeing a picture of one of these iconic helmet designs brings back strong memories.
I used to love the different helmet designs and the meanings behind them. These days, you could show me all of the 2014 helmets and I’d be lucky to get more than half right. Most appear to be meaningless stock designs that change every week. Maybe it’s just because I grew up watching F1 through an era with iconic helmet designs that meant something and youngsters don’t care these days don’t care (not that it matters as they don’t watch F1, buy Rolexes or bank) but that’s my thoughts behind it anyway.
Are there more important things for the FIA fix? Yes of course there are but does that mean they should stop making other improvements in the mean-time?
Dan
19th February 2015, 13:11
Your last comment hits the nail on the head. Couldn’t agree more!
antonyob (@)
19th February 2015, 13:47
Yes the guffawing cynical sarcasm wears a bit thin. The helmet helps to identify the driver..and so it will again. A good idea basically. The answer to F1’s “problems? No.
I sometimes wonder if people on here even like the sport. I guess its the same on football blogs, lots of moaning, not a lot of loving. Strange.
hobo (@hobo)
19th February 2015, 14:43
@antonyob – If we didn’t like the sport there wouldn’t be any comments because we wouldn’t be here. The reason there are complaints is because people care and want to see the best for the sport rather than, what many of us see as, ridiculous regulations that serve no purpose aside from distracting from actual problems.
If drivers want to keep the same helmet all season or for years, that’s fine. But if other drivers want to change them, for whatever reason, it should not be up to the FIA or F1 or WMSC to say otherwise. Why not dictate what color the cars can be or if one of the cars is uglier than the rest?
antonyob (@)
19th February 2015, 15:40
Well so what, get on with it and enjoy the good bits. Its not a democracy. Im no FIA apologist but I get out of the sport what I like and ignore the rest. I cant influence them however much jumping around I do. Its never perfect. It never ih-is. As Blur said
TribalTalker (@tribaltalker)
19th February 2015, 20:55
@antonyb – there are technologies that other racing systems have used in the past to place identifying markers on the video feeds above the cars. Names, positions, points – but the FIA (class of 1906) isn’t interested. Helmet colours are great if you can see them. I can’t. About 8% of caucasian males have colour vision problems.
The whole argument about helmet design continuity is specious. If the FIA wants identifiable drivers, there’s an excellent solution that really helps new viewers become fans. It just costs money. (End rant!)
Solo (@solo)
7th April 2015, 9:19
I agree. All the complains about more serious matters are pointless. Sure there are more serious matters but that doesn’t mean we can’t have small rule improvements and to me that is an improvement. People identify drivers by the helmet. It’s better if they don’t change the bloody thing every race.
People nagging for the sake of nagging, it’s getting tiring.
If you think this is so unimportant as you say that Fia shouldn’t bother then why are you bothering so much also?
Paulo Ruiz (@omegadetra)
19th February 2015, 0:22
“It’s sticking an Elastoplast over a gaping wound that requires major surgery.”
A good analogy, but I think it could be improved. How about “It’s sticking tape over someone else’s complaining mouths while there’s a huge, bleeding hole in our own backs.”
Bruno (@brunes)
19th February 2015, 0:23
Let’s ban new hairstyles, overgrown beards, chest hair and big sunglasses.
And so we can really recognize the drivers, they mist all wear glass helmets.
greg-c (@greg-c)
19th February 2015, 2:34
I for one am confused by how many Ferrari’s are on track at any given time, there’s “two” many, of course we need stable helmut designs ? why not pick a single solid primary color for life along with your number ?
Patrick (@paeschli)
19th February 2015, 11:36
I think teams should paint their two cars in two different colors: different helmets, camera colors and numbers are not enough for most fans to differentiate them.
TribalTalker (@tribaltalker)
19th February 2015, 12:49
@brunes: Agreed. The FIA urgently needs to form a hairstyle homologation panel. I suggest that World Champions be allowed a number of tokens so they can have limited styling changes done throughout the season. It is crucial to the future of F1 that we ban beards. It’s just unfair that one driver should have such different equipment and shocking that Alonso and Hamilton have been able to profit unfairly for so long. Alonso’s beard advantage has become so great that we must act now!
Dom (@3dom)
19th February 2015, 18:49
@tribaltalker so the hairstyle homologation doesn’t have to take place by 28th February? Or you expecting one of the teams will find a loophole that allows in season hairstyling?
TribalTalker (@tribaltalker)
19th February 2015, 20:36
@3dom – I was planning on 29th Feb to provide some sport for the lawyers.
However, there are already reports of Red Bull combs having unacceptable levels of flex. I think maybe we’re too late.
Dom (@3dom)
19th February 2015, 21:17
@tribaltalker I heard that the Red Bull comb will be banned because it’s a moveable Hairodynamic device ;-)
Solo (@solo)
7th April 2015, 9:22
Ron Dennis approves :)
Tyler (@tdog)
19th February 2015, 0:23
The helmet ban reminds me of recent stupidities like double points and standing restarts.
Once again, an answer to a question that no-one asked, in place of the sport addressing the real issues driving fans away like prohibitive ticket prices and dwindling free to air coverage around the world.
These silly rule changes are announced without warning or consultation, and the powers that be seem genuinely surprised at the backlash which follows.
Instead of actually asking the fans what they want as part of a meaningful or genuine attempt to listen to those who support the sport, the latest fad idea is imposed with little or no thinking about the long term consequences (eg. can a driver run a one off helmet for charity?)
In that respect, I have to applaud Mercedes for opposing radical rule changes in 2016, suggesting instead that (gasp) proper research be done into what the public want and what are the long term consequences.
It’s about time that the Strategy Group lived up to its name and undertook proper research and consultation with the fans and came up with a coherent, long term plan to improve the sport instead of spitting out ad hoc ideas that won’t address the serious issues F1 faces.
Kevin (@kmccauley)
19th February 2015, 4:25
COTD
layercake
19th February 2015, 4:58
@Tyler: just to be clear. Since Mercedes is NOT the FIA, you still applaud them for having nothing to do with the decision to impose helmet design restrictions (again, they had no part in this decision). Then in the same statement you applaud Mercedes for being part of the Strategy Group which had nothing to do with the restrictions on helmet design restrictions BUT made decisions that directly reflected the competitions ability to compete and so forth continued Mercedes dominance. Then in the same statement you suggest that the Strategy Group has/or ever will make a decision that reflects fans wants/needs over the 3 main corporations that control the Strategy Group. Also just to be clear, you are not part of Lewis Hamilton’s management/consultancy. Confirm or deny?
P.S. If you support Mercedes decision (for instance) to restrict the max width of the 2016 cars (which havent been developed) then you also support that Mercedes/Hamilton is terrified of any rule change which might see his/their 3 in a row championship. (Lets be honest susie wolfe could have won 2014 WDC in that merc). So lets all be honest, no rule change = desperate to keep lewish (no spelling errore winning. Rule change = we think competition is best for the fan base. choose a side.
pxcmerc (@)
19th February 2015, 5:27
Ironically you are advocating for something that is anticompetitive in order to promote competition. Mercedes are the most competitive in the field, partly because they helped push for a rule change that did nothing but condemn two teams to the doldrums, and make for very predictable racing.
You see, those rule changes end up screwing most of the rest of the field, as they did with Renault and RBR. Now it’s Merc’s chance to win for a few years, until the FIA gets to change the rules again and maybe it will be Ferrari’s chance to keep winning over and over again. F1 needs less rules, not rule changes. Lewis Hamilton only needs 50% of his team’s attention to keep doing what he does best.
rule change = we don’t mind costing teams lots of money and forcing them to suck because we limit opportunities vs no rule change, at least they don’t have to spend as much sucking, vs. less rules, hey, maybe their is an opportunity for some team to find something new and innovative.
pxcmerc (@)
19th February 2015, 5:29
*Renault and RBR vs. the rest of the field.
*there is an opportunity
layercake
19th February 2015, 5:55
@pcxmerc 1st, i’ll never apologize for backing a rule change. 2nd, Ironic you didn’t take the time to remove MERC from your SN. 3rd, Rule changes don’t screw most of the field, most of the field ‘screw themselves’ by failing to adapt to the rule change. 4th, The ‘chance to change the rules’ was not up to the FIA, it was up to the strategy group (failed to mention by you in your response) and could have happened next year with something which seems ‘fair’ with regards to open competition (something im sure a Hamilton fan like yourself would applaud because otherwise his 2nd and possibly 3rd championship will technically (therefore also legally) the easiest in F1 history) like changing the max car width. If merc/hamilton can argue a max car width destroys the engine advantage they capitalized on then it will be completely crystal clear that F1 is a fixed sport (which it is 85% there already).
to summarize, MERC/hamilton (via the strategy group), not, THE FIA, voted against something like max car width, an area of development (this is F1 right? not indycar) that could have allowed for increased competition.
The FIA voted against helmet design, to be clear, not the strategy group.
Woody (@woodyd91)
19th February 2015, 8:56
You seem obsessed with Hamilton despite nobody mentioning him other than yourself. The point was Mercedes have said we’re open to change but lets not make any hasty regulation changes without first looking at what the fans really want. Which seems pretty smart to me. Whether you believe Mercedes are being sincere or not, I’m really not sure why you bring Hamilton into it, he doesn’t get a vote in what rules changes are made or not. Having said that Hamilton himself has said repeatedly throughout his career and even last season how he would like to see the return a wide rear tires.
You keep repeating MERC/Hamilton but that simply isn’t true is it, it’s not MERC/Hamilton voting in these meetings, it’s MERC/Ferrari/RedBull/BE etc…
Just before you make another statements like, I’m also part of the Merc/Hamilton management company, No. I’m a Merc Fan, I’m a Hamilton fan (among other drivers & teams) but I’m also a F1 fan. And as a F1 fan I would back any rule change that would make the racing more exciting as long as it is done for fans enjoyment rather than competition political agendas and is introduced at the right time and with the proper market research behind it.
layercake
19th February 2015, 5:59
also, i really hope we dont have to waste a few responses around the fact you argue for less rules, but then argue that no rule change and a rule change = less rules. for purposes of basic understanding changing rule A, to rule B still = 1 rule. no more explanation is necessary.
KoosOos (@koosoos)
19th February 2015, 5:58
@ layercake: Why bring Hamilton in to this he has nothing to do with this. Secondly for the first time a big team as said that they should first do a study of what the ppl want before they make big changes to the rules.Is that not what we asked for from the teams and the rule makers. You sound like one of those ppl how are unhappy because there team is not wining and want the rules to changes so that there team can get to the top. When you have a development sport witch F1 is you will always have dominance in the sport. You can changes the rules as much as you want you will most probably still have a team that dominate the sport. But with most fans it is if my team dominate then the rules are far but if my team does not dominate then the rules are unfar and needs to be changes so that my team can dominate. But ppl will not say we want the rules to be changes so my team dominate we they will say we need the rules to changes so that there is a more level playing field.
layercake
19th February 2015, 6:09
you’ll never find me within any given year not wishing for a bit of change. I wanted wider cars/tires last year, the year before that, AND even the year before that. I want less aero restrictions, less restrictions on suspension, less restricitons on tire compound choice during the race, even less restrictions on tires, and many more areas with restriction released. I wanted last years redbull as wide as I want next years Mercedes (or at least both teams to choose the max width of their challenger). i realize fans like myself are few and far between but I wont settle for less respect than that of a driver fan that applauds current dominance regulation. I’m a fan of less regulation and unlimited spending. So when I argue for wider cars, that’s actually an argument for less regulation. If you consider yourself a fan of less regulation, but applaud the decision for max car width restriction, you are disingenuous at best and an outright liar at worst.
KoosOos (@koosoos)
19th February 2015, 7:06
I’m not a fan of less regulations, i’m a fan of stable regulations. Changing to less regulations will only hurt the sport. Nothing good will come for it and the sport we love will die. The sport is so expensive and by taking away the regulations you will only make the sport more expensive, or you need to put in new regulations to stop spending.
petebaldwin (@)
19th February 2015, 11:45
@tdog – it’s funny though isn’t it…. This year everyone hates the FIA so this rule is terrible and not required. It’s answering a question no-one asked.
A couple of years ago, everyone hated Vettel and there were constant complaints about him changing his helmet. If this rule was brought in back when everyone still hated Vettel (ie before he stopped winning), this rule would have been met with mass approval!
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
19th February 2015, 0:41
I like the idea of drivers sticking to one well-thought helmet design that identifies them. Constantly changing them don’t bring future classics. These days, it’s hard to see a classic one, appart form the old one from JB. I’m not a fan of Vetel’s new helmets every 5 minutes, it’s very hard to get used to it.
But I don’t like that being enforced. They should allow the drivers to express themselves the way they want. Some like changing all the itme, others don’t
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
19th February 2015, 1:19
The helmet snafu is part of a step-by-step process to become F1 like the premier league. Control everything!
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
19th February 2015, 1:47
@peartree Yeah it’s a bit like a player receiving a yellow card for taking his top off while celebrating. Because FIFA, UEFA, the FA etc control every aspect of the marketing of the sport then when a player removes his shirt, he also removes the sponsors logo from his celebration and FIFA etc are culpable to these sponsors and have to be seen to issue a punishment. This punishment doesn’t seem to fit the crime and its the same with the helmets issue. It is such an overly officious move that it seems bananas but, in the eyes of the rulemaker, is closing a potential marketing route. Formula 1 basically takes this idea and uses it as the answer to every problem and question. Whether necessary or not and to be honest, it’s the poison that’s killing the sport. Formula 1 events should be marketed to feel special, like a world cup match or a tennis final or the masters but the way its hidden from view in the modern world with no online presence and pay-per-view subscriptions can only drive fans away.
Scepter (@scepter)
19th February 2015, 1:47
This is the case of a rule that didn’t need a rule.
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
19th February 2015, 1:32
I am aware that Toto Wolff was probably giving a generic answer to what, by now, must have become pretty tedious subject but I would hope a team of Mercedes calibre would “always learn from (their) mistakes.” The Hamilton-Rosberg rivalry was one of the great moments of the 2014 season and the grace and humility that Rosberg showed after losing the title was my highlight of the season. I think the class he displayed proved the respect between top drivers and was I extremely impressed by it. That said, at other times in the campaign his attitude was questionable but he gave a good account of himself concerning his self-control in high pressure situations. But, although Toto claims to have sorted it, I believe the saga will rear its head again in 2015. If that is a part of a straight fight between the Mercedes drivers, then I believe Hamilton will again beat Rosberg even if, as last year, he gets off to a slower start points wise. However, if Red Bull, Williams and Ferrari can provide any competition to the championship battle and be fighting semi-consistently for race wins, I think the tie could swing the other way. For me, the only way Rosberg can beat Hamilton is if Lewis cracks under pressure in a multi-way fight. Although since then his campaigns have been stellar, his 2011 does suggest there could be chinks in his armour if his head is in the wrong place. 2011 was blamed on having the split from his girlfriend and the same thing has happened this year. I wonder if Lewis’ burden of having the champion symbol will work for or against him. I personally believe that he will embrace it and have another great year but if the team gets off to a slow start regarding reliability, Rosberg begins strongly and the contact issue is not resolved, I am less sure. The only thing I am certain of its that this fight is not over and when there’s an controversial issue then the complex dynamic might show new sides that even the Mercedes brains can’t solve.
TribalTalker (@tribaltalker)
19th February 2015, 12:57
@rbalonso: If the other teams have quick cars I think it will work to Hamilton’s advantage. No longer will Rosberg be able to cruise to 2nd place and keep on bringing in the big points – he’ll be pushed down the order a bit. Hamilton could end up building a margin over his team mate faster than last season. Of course a lot of it is down to luck on the track and in the reliability of the cars, maybe it will work to Rosberg’s advantage after all.
Corey
19th February 2015, 2:43
I’ll be honest, I’ve never looked to the driver’s helmet to identify who’s in the car. If they want people to tell who from who, then the need to make it mandatory that the drivers number is clearly displayed on that pillar that sits in front of the sidepods. I know some teams already do it, but it would be nice to see all of the do it.
Iestyn Davies (@fastiesty)
19th February 2015, 3:04
Exactly, they made career numbers for this purpose, branding and identification. That we can’t see them on the cars at all, means we now need a ‘bigger’ identifier. But personally, I reckon that only clear helmet designs stand out for identification, while those with too many sponsors on are too vague to be easily identifiable.
GB (@bgp001ruled)
19th February 2015, 4:37
i agree! bigger numbers (specially somewhere in the front and on the endplates of the rearwings) but i would also like to see the black and yellow markers on the air in take cameras much more prominent. then you wouldnt need to see the helmets and the drivers could keep on going nuts with their designs!
Nick...
19th February 2015, 10:05
Bring back Red and Yellow. I can never see the black. Black disappears. It’s an absense of colour.
In my mind when I’m watching the race I look for yellow and “not yellow”. I’m quite stupid though and that hurts my head. Please bring back the red. :-)
petebaldwin (@)
19th February 2015, 11:13
You never look at the helmets to tell drivers apart because it’s pointless these days. Look at the picture below and tell me you’re not sure which driver is which. Would you rather than had stock helmet designs and a bit of orange or yellow on wing instead?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/sl/7/7c/Prost_Senna_1989_Japanese_GP.jpg
Interesting to see that the hate towards the FIA (which is absolutely 100% justified) has got to a point where people will criticise any decision they make!
Corey
19th February 2015, 17:48
I know exactly which is which by looking at the photo. The other thing I noticed is the way cars were constructed then vs. know. I want to say up until the mid-90’s there were no head rests in the cars which obstructed the view, nowadays that can easily go halfway up the helmet. Another thing is the designs themselves, most of the iconic ones were simple designs that were easily recognizable, like Senna’s and Hunt’s. Most of todays designs, while beautiful in their own right, just seem to busy with layers upon layers of color.
Dylan Mota (@mota18)
19th February 2015, 4:13
I hope every driver wears the exact same helmet to help fans “Identify” their favorite driver.
KoosOos (@koosoos)
19th February 2015, 5:09
Here is some interesting information on helmet and there cost. You could buy 8 sets of brake discs and pads for the same amount that it cost teams to buy helmets a year. I think it is better to spend that money on
bakes and disc then helmets. To cut budgets you always start at things that does not have a big impact on the the
every day run of a business or team. Small things that does not looks reverent to most but at the end of it when you put it all together it makes a big difference.
Diego (@ironcito)
19th February 2015, 5:27
Even without a ban, they’re free to keep the same helmet for as long as it’s useful, without any effect on performance. So banning helmet changes is not really a budget cut.
KoosOos (@koosoos)
19th February 2015, 7:37
Yes but every time they changes the helmet design they use a new helmet.
hobo (@hobo)
19th February 2015, 14:53
Do you honestly think this is going to cut back on new helmets? There will still be multiple new helmets each weekend (have to have at least one spare) except they will all look alike week to week.
Brian Frank (@brianfrank302)
19th February 2015, 9:10
If Red Bull can afford new helmets every race, so be it. Teams with low budget can stick to no-new-helmets. But its ridiculous to ban it altogether.
Diego (@ironcito)
19th February 2015, 5:24
Drivers should all agree to wear the same helmet, at least between teammates. A rebellion.
Helmets for identification aren’t always very useful. Yes, Senna and a few other iconic ones, but on average it’s far from ideal. If numbers are deemed insufficient, there should be some sort of clear marking on the cars, visible from a distance and from all or most angles. I believe there is/was a color marking in the top camera housing; they should do something like that but larger and more clearly visible.
Chris (@tophercheese21)
19th February 2015, 5:43
Seriously? Drivers changing helmets is a “gaping wound”? Come off it.
Don’t get me wrong, I like that the drivers aren’t going to be able to change so frequently, but Geeze, it’s not like the sport is in dire trouble because of it.
ngwe23 (@realstig)
19th February 2015, 6:11
I think you got the wrong end of the stick. The current state of F1 is the “gaping wound”, and drivers changing the helmets is the “Elastoplast”. Whats the writer means is that F1 requires a major overhaul and moves such as these will not do much “to improve the promotional appeal of the sport”.
Dr. Jekyll (@dr-jekyll)
19th February 2015, 6:47
whooosh!
TribalTalker (@tribaltalker)
19th February 2015, 12:59
+1 made me laugh.
lockup (@)
19th February 2015, 7:33
I watched Toto on the Sky season review saying Spa was only 51% Rosberg’s fault, so I seriously doubt he has learned anything.
TribalTalker (@tribaltalker)
19th February 2015, 13:00
He’s learned how to manage his drivers. He’s not bothered about telling us what he really thinks!
Philip (@philipgb)
19th February 2015, 7:46
I think I’ve figured it out. The question is, what is F1? Is it the pinnacle of motorsport? No, they long ago reached the point that the weakest link was the driver and could no longer allow speeds to continue to increase. Is it a platform for development of road relevant tech? No, cars are open wheeled with wings and components measure in race weekends not years. Renault can claim that the engineering in a diesel van comes from winning championships all it likes, there is no real carry over. Is it an entertainment show?
And that’s what it is. It’s a pantomime put on at weekends, funded by marketing. The problem is they keep hiring real engineers and racing drivers to spoil the show. So the FIA is playing the bad guy. Bad rule decisions, bad steward decisions, bad race tracks, just about anything they can do to dumbfound the fans and get us talking about the show.
Because that’s what hooks us. Seriously I think JJ Abrams is behind the whole sham.
It’s possibly getting past saving. Like most organisms that have perpetual growth, eventually that growth kills it by exhaustion. F1 is a Lobster.
antonyob (@)
19th February 2015, 13:53
Great post. Everyone takes F1 sooooo seriously. Its just stuff on telly and occasionally you watch it standing in a field. F1 is a lobster. Excellent stuff.
verstappen (@verstappen)
19th February 2015, 7:59
Anyone knows why Webber adds a coke snorting smiley, a gay couple and a glass of wine? Are those the issues he thinks F1 should be concerning itself with?
smudgersmith1 (@smudgersmith1)
19th February 2015, 8:19
So the FIA bans helmet changes, in a world where F1 struggles to attract young people the very same people who are media savvy who love innovation and ergo change, F1 is being ruled by an ageing generation who don’t like change and in fact fear it.
iIt is insulting in the extreme to suggest that we won’t know which driver is which, irrespective of the helmet, at 200mph in the drizzle or rain in Spa…who knows anyway !!
Brian Frank (@brianfrank302)
19th February 2015, 9:14
If anyone wants to avoid bad decisions in life, learn from FIA.
James Devon (@tata)
19th February 2015, 9:27
Very funny tweet from Keith on how the FIA sporting regulations are written :)
Kazihno (@kazinho)
19th February 2015, 9:48
As ever, I am eager to see the detail in this silly rule.
Does this rule include sponsor logos on the helmet? If the helmet submitted included alcohol branding sponsor logos, is the rule broken when the logos must be changed at an event where alcohol advertising is banned? Or do they have to be added as stickers and are not included. Because I can see lots of drivers submitting a blank helmet with layers of “sponsor” stickers.
Is the visor included? Must drivers retain the same tinting on visors at each race?
So poorly thought out, just like the radio ban. Or the homologation non-date. Or no tyre changes for safety, or tyre changes also for safety…
Gigantor (@kbdavies)
19th February 2015, 13:03
If there is anything Mercedes have learnt, it is certainly not anything to do with handling the Rosberg vs Lewis rivalry. When you insist on having a single race strategist for 2 competing drivers, when you insist giving your drivers dossiers on each others driving abilities, then you foster and encourage the rivalry; and eventually it will spill over. When you start to implement stupid strategies all in the name of fairness and parity, it leads to a breakdown between the drivers. Ask a certain Martin Whitmarsh. He did the same at McLaren. He started by changing Lewis’s race engineer and allocating him to Button; so Button would “feel more at home” – his words, not mine. Toto is on record as saying Spa 2014 is 51% Rosberg’s fault. How sillier can a statement get? As i predicted last year, there will be fireworks again this year; and if that contract isn’t signed by then, the fallout wil be much much worse.
Ciaran (@ciaran)
19th February 2015, 13:58
Pretty entertaining to watch everyone do a complete 180 and pretend they never complained about Vettel constantly changing his helmets…
M3CR
19th February 2015, 17:40
So because of Vettel’s tradition of changing helmets every race, it should be banned? Please. Drivers change their helmets almost every season, and not allowing one off helmets, like Raikkonen’s James Hunt and Rosberg’s World Cup, is a loss that is unwarranted and unnecessary.
If the FIA so desperately wants identification to be easier, then they should make the car numbers larger.
Honestly, there is absolutely no basis for this. The only argument I hear for this are purists who hate change.