Kaltenborn concerned over 2017 engine costs

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Monisha Kaltenborn says that customer teams like Sauber are more concerned over the cost of the proposed 1,000bhp engines for 2017.


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

Sauber F1 team wary of costs of new engines for 2017 (Racer)

"As a customer team, for us the most important factor on engines is what the cost is. The engines used to be such a big cost driver and we managed to move away from that for many years. But unfortunately now we are back to where we were – which is not a very sensible thing."

McLaren over most dramatic problems - Eric Boullier (ESPN)

"It's good to see we can make some progress and we are just about ready to score points on merit. We're still far from where we want to be but I think in some way it looked very dramatic and now we are past the dramatic time so there is some progress."

GP2 open to becoming FIA F2 series (Autosport)

"It could make sense and we need to see exactly what would be the tender regulations and the way it would work but it's definitely something we would look at. If our objectives go together, there is no reason not to do it but at the moment, we don't know."

Could Raikkonen have won Bahrain and did Mercedes leave Rosberg at Vettel’s mercy? (JAonF1)

"Kimi Raikkonen finished second for Ferrari, but could he have won the race? And did Mercedes leave Nico Rosberg out to dry when Sebastan Vettel twice undercut him at the pit stops? Here we have the answers."

Lewis Hamilton 'happy where he is' at Mercedes, says Bernie Ecclestone (Sky)

"And asked if he thought the world champion would therefore stay at Mercedes, he added: 'Yes, yes.'"

Kvyat struggling with pressure says Villeneuve (GrandPrix)

"Last year he did OK at Toro Rosso, but it was nothing special. Red Bull is good at creating a hype around someone, but F1 is also about handling the pressure."

Di Resta: “People want noisy cars” (Top Gear)

"I'm not saying F1 is missing something, but people's mindset is changing away from it. People want noisy cars, they want to see close racing."

Remembering Senna’s first F1 win, 30 years on (Formula1.com)

"To win in those conditions takes an exceptional talent. There were 20-odd exceptional talents out there that you could say failed miserably on that day - and he didn’t. He brought it home convincingly."


Comment of the day

With three wins in the first for races, is Hamilton the best driver on the grid in this current V6 era? ‘rm’ isn’t so sure…

It’s easy to get that impression – when he is in by far the best car on the grid. For some reason Hamilton’s car gets far less attention than Vettel’s title-winning cars ever did, in spite of the fact that it’s considerably more dominant than those RB’s were.

The closest parallel to this season in recent history is 2011. Back then Vettel had four poles, three wins and a second place in the first four races – exactly what Hamilton has now. After four races in 2011 the constructors standings were: RB 148 points, McLaren 105 points. After four races in 2015 it’s: Mercedes 159 points, Ferrari 107 points.

Mercedes look more dominant this year than RB did in 2011. But so vast was Mercs’ dominance in 2014 that a 2011-style season is being greeted as wonderfully close and competitive!

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Fixy and Kaylee911!

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

Mark Webber won the F1-supporting Formula 3000 race at Silverstone on this day 15 years ago.

Author information

Will Wood
Will has been a RaceFans contributor since 2012 during which time he has covered F1 test sessions, launch events and interviewed drivers. He mainly...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

134 comments on “Kaltenborn concerned over 2017 engine costs”

  1. Perhaps Ksltenborn could sign up a few more pay drivers for next year if she is eorried about costs?

    1. I remember reading an articles *before* the new V6 engines, that engines alone in the V8 era, where about 50% of a small team’s expenses. Now imagine that you run the team and that cost suddendly tripled. Of course you could try to cut expenses elsewhere, like R&D, and of course you are getting pay drivers, millions of dollars don’t come from sponsors anymore.

      Everyone, including people from the top teams agrue that this is a problem that needs to be fixed, otherwise we will lose more teams and have an even smaller grid. Kicking someone when down (Sauber in that case) is easy, however if you think that they probably have losses each year and still try to keep the team running, is pretty amazing.

      But I forgot, we hate Sauber this year.

  2. MB (@muralibhats)
    22nd April 2015, 1:15

    Not a problem. Monisha can sign few more drivers to cover the cost.

    1. or, another engine supplier and play them off each other

    2. Indeed, but for how long can she stall on paying out the settlements.

      Actually I agree with Monisha on this one, MB, FER, REN and HON get all the research and development benefits of designing, building and refining these engines, that information is very useful for their core business, I think in fairness the customer teams should only pay the actual production and service costs of the engines they use and ensure that the brandname of the engine supplier features prominently on the car and in all publicity about the car like the time when MB gained a lot of good publicity from McLaren winning races with MB engines, silver paint job and 3 pointed stars on the nose and engine cover.
      I would allow the engine manufacturer free riegn over development and optionaly 1 race to test upgrades before supplying them to customer teams, that way they maintain a slight advantage over their customers to compensate for their greater investment, but would have to supply any team that wanted their engine at cost.

        1. Ok that all good. But then way supply engines too teams if they not going to make some of there money back . Let the smaller teams design and produce there own engines and see what the cost are. What i realy find funny is that last year the engines was around 30 milj. now they are talking about 18 milj thats almost half after one year.

          1. For PR reasons? The whole idea of running in F1 is to showcase their technology. And production cost will still be far lower per unit if producing for 8 cars than for just 2, which is an economical reason in its own right @koosoos

          2. True but it still comes down to pay what we ask or get your self a other engine or make your own. See you all believe that the manufactures have to supply engines to the team at the smaller teams cost criteria but that is not true. It is like every thing in live if you want it pay for it at my asking price or get another one or make a plan. The funny thing is that if they get the engines for cheaper they will just spend the money on other places to make the car go faster. They are not going to save it for a rainy day. That is the truve of F1. Until teams learn not to spend more money then they have we will always have this problem.

          3. You need someone with experience in making engines to make F1 engines. Isn’t that obvious? You can’t just say to sauber, hey please develop an F1 engine on your own!!

      1. R&D is a part of the cost of the engine so why should the customers not pay a share of that? Her argument that Ferrari will use the engine anyway and thus should pay for all of the R&D is infantile. The whole point of getting customers to use your engine is to offset the cost of development/production. Based on her comments on this and the recent driver situation, perhaps Monisha needs to attend a basic economics course.

  3. OmarR-Pepper - Vettel 40 victories!!! (@)
    22nd April 2015, 1:16

    COTD spot on. Hamilton is not being labeled as a “it’s just the car” driver. And I’m not saying that, but the treatment to Vettel was unfair, and now we see Rosberg is not able to do the job right (as Webber couldn’t match Vettel in his time) people don’t use Bad Rosberg as an argument to diminish Hamilton’s achievements, but when Webber was battered, people used to start many theories as “Webber car is the only one which fails”; and that has been proven wrong many times by this site.

    1. people don’t use Bad Rosberg as an argument to diminish Hamilton’s achievements

      Really? You know this site used Hamilton v Rosberg to kick Hamilton down to third on the list of driver rankings for 2014, because Hamilton only “barely” beat Rosberg– You know, the guy who drove around Vettel twice, and sent Vettel back to the pit for a new wing after chasing him off the track.

      But the thing is, Webber did have worse luck than Vettel (on average), and the car was designed for Vettel’s driving style.

      1. Without a girlfriend to distract him this year, Hamilton will be difficult to beat. I’ll say it again – at this rate and with the other drivers taking points off of each other, Hamilton has a good chance of clinching the title by Monza.

        1. Or possibly Germany ?

          1. ColdFly F1 (@)
            22nd April 2015, 4:01


          2. Nordschleife? (I win) :P

      2. Webber did have worse luck than Vettel (on average), and the car was designed for Vettel’s driving style.

        Do you believe in unicorns and the tooth fairy as well? Those things you state so confidently, they aren’t actually true.

        1. RM it’s hardly surprising that anything objective in regards to Vettel pushes your Buttons. It is true that Webber had worse reliability than Vettel, it’s also true that the car was designed around Vettel hence he was able to exploit the blown gases better than Webber, it’s also true that Vettel was the number 1 driver. But of course to expect you to view things in a pretty impartial manner when it comes to Vettel is like telling a Christian that there is no such thing as God. You want to criticise Hamilton for having the best car yet you are probably one of the people that slated his move to Merc in 2013 saying he now gets a midfield car that reflects his talents.

          Regardless- if you are not aware most WDC have won in the best car. It was ‘the car’ when Senna won, Prost, Mansell, Schumi, Vettel, JB the list is endless- because that is the name of the game. If you didn’t know, you need a championship winning car to win the championship. The best teams with the best car usually employ the best drivers which is nothing new in F1’s 65 year old history. In fact there are only a few F1 drivers who won the WDC in a car that didn’t win the constructors and I’ll let you go figure who is also part of that exclusive group.

          1. @Davej Truth!

          2. RM it’s hardly surprising that anything objective in regards to Vettel pushes your Buttons.

            The next statement you post here which is “objective” will be your first one.

            It is true that Webber had worse reliability than Vettel

            No, it’s a lie. And it’s a lie which has been well documented many times.

            it’s also true that the car was designed around Vettel

            No, that’s not true either. I defy you to find a statement from Newy saying that he “designed the car around Vettel”.

            it’s also true that Vettel was the number 1 driver

            No, it’s not. And it’s patently obvious that it’s not. If Vettel had been the No 1 driver at RB would he have been ordered to let Webber take the win in Malaysia? But you’re impervious to facts.

            of course to expect you to view things in a pretty impartial manner when it comes to Vettel is like telling a Christian that there is no such thing as God.

            I’m the one who keeps citing facts and numbers and statistics, and you’re the one who keeps claiming that his feelings and sentiments have more Truth to them than any mere facts. If you wish to pose as the voice of scientific reason doing battle with irrational sentiment, try mixing some actual data in with your ad homs. Of course the data to support your position does not exist, which is why you’re taking the tack you’re taking.

          3. @Rm- you haven’t given a single fact in your entire response apart from Multi-21. All you have done is say “that’s a lie” without providing any facts to back up your argument. I’m sorry but I won’t take lessons on objectivity from a staunch Seb fan who looks at things through a pretty warped lens. Like I said, attempting to even hold an intelligent and impartial debate with you is pretty much a waste of time. A trip down your previous comments is tonne and a bit of proof for that, at every turn making Sebstian look like he can walk on water. Fan___. Fill in the blanks.

          4. But the thing is, Webber did have worse luck than Vettel (on average), and the car was designed for Vettel’s driving style.

            Davej, RM stated a statistic that was posted on the forum a few months or a bit over a year ago. You probably weren’t here then but go to https://www.racefans.net/groups/f1/forum/topic/vettel-webber-and-reliability-at-red-bull/ .

            Besides, did you even remember Bahrain, Korea, and Australia 2010?

            @Rm- you haven’t given a single fact in your entire response apart from Multi-21. All you have done is say “that’s a lie”

            Except the burden to prove the statement is on you, not him, and a sentence like that is not how you prove it. Think about how the burden to prove something is always on the prosecutor, while the defendant can just utter a wee bit of reasonable doubt and be aquitted.

            You want to criticise Hamilton for having the best car

            He doesn’t. He’s simply critisising those that critisise a driver (in this case Vettel) for nonsensical reasons (only to then think the burden of proof is not on them). He’s not critisising HAM, he’s just critisising YOU.

            And rightly so.

            A trip down your previous comments is tonne and a bit of proof for that, at every turn making Sebstian look like he can walk on water.

            No he didn’t. It’s more like you’re trying to make him look like he’s worse at driving an F1 car than a donkey.

            RM it’s hardly surprising that anything objective in regards to Vettel pushes your Buttons.

            Anything objective like “Vettel’s never won from lower than 3rd on the grid” wouldn’t. Something like a denial of https://www.racefans.net/groups/f1/forum/topic/vettel-webber-and-reliability-at-red-bull/ on the other hand…….

        2. I can not remember a single Vettel pass.Not one.wait Multi 21 was a pass.
          Hamilton on the other hand is known for his passing skill.

    2. Have you seen the internet? Many people saying the Mercedes car is the best that Hamilton is only winning because of his car and people have been bad mouthing Rosberg since Australia, its only natural non Hamilton fans want to diminish his achievements in the same way non Vettel fans want to diminish Vettel’s achievements which even I did until 2013 shut me up. Don’t make Vettel out to be the only victim of something every dominant F1 driver goes through

      1. @addimaf1 I’m sorry but the way people diminish Vettel his achievements was on a whole other level than is happening now with Hamilton. Every single race he won you had to read about here in the comments about how he did not deserve the car, that it was the car winnning, that we had to congratulate Newey. Not once have I seen such banter on Hamilton. Even yesterday I still read someone saying Vettel does not deserve his titles.

        Sure they both received some terrible comments but the sheer amount of believers Vettel is still only an average driver where as Hamilton is now being praised like some divine driver is just ridiculous.

        1. Porsche – could that be because LH has never had his ar£e handed to him by a rookie teammate while driving the second best car on the grid?

          Happy to give him time to settle into Ferrari and excuse a few errors but no one can suggest he loves a racing battle at close quarters.. Well some seem to but there we are?

          1. Porsche – could that be because LH has never had his ar£e handed to him by a rookie teammate while driving the second best car on the grid?

            One average season doesn’t make a bad driver. Many drivers have had those. Hamilton for example was terrible in 2011 and was beaten by Button whom I doubt anyone would rate higher than Hamilton. It’s the weakest of weak reasons to hate on Vettel his achievements. Most of all because of the entire new set of regulations.

            Happy to give him time to settle into Ferrari and excuse a few errors but no one can suggest he loves a racing battle at close quarters.. Well some seem to but there we are?

            Another big pile of ….. and absolute nonsense. Vettel is at least as good as Hamilton if you like at close racing. Nothing suggests otherwise. If you really think Vettel can only win from pole take a look at Hamilton his starting positions in the races he went on to win. His British GP victory last year was his lowest with sixth and it was only because he had the most dominant car together with Rosberg failing to finish he was able to do this.

            The banter towards Vettel is often as unfounded as can be and mere bias judgement than anything else. I have all the respect in the world for someone who does not like someone for a particular reason but denying his talent is just a proper waste of time. That counts for both Hamilton and Vettel.

          2. 1 year Vettel was beaten but Hamilton was beaten by a team mate in 2011 with the 2nd best car. Button finished 2nd in 2011 Hamilton never finished 2nd in 2nd best car. He has won 2 titles with the best car (2008 equal). These are just a quirk of stats. Hamilton is awesome so is Vettel. Same car for both over 3 seasons would be great to see but until I see that everything else is peoples individual opinion.

            Also Senna only won his titles with the best car.

          3. LH has never had his ar£e handed to him by a rookie teammate

            So far Kimi is having his ar£e handed to him by his “rookie teammate”, Seb!

            The way the Vettel-deniers keep calling Ricciardo of 2014 a “rookie” is indicative of their disinterest or even disdain for facts in general.

        2. @xtwl That difference in attitude will likely be partly due to the fact that Hamilton has proved himself “deserving” from day 1. Beating his world champion team mate and losing the title by a single point in his rookie year, winning a championship despite not having the fastest car in his second (and some rather questionable stewarding decisions), Winning a race in every season he’s competed in, despite inferior cars in some years.

          I’m not saying that Vettel is undeserving, but it can appear that he landing a dominant car almost immediately, whereas Hamilton has endured years of parity or inferiority in the equipment available to him. So when he got a car that was utterly dominant, it’s easier to feel that he’s “earnt” it – he’s paid his dues in the previous years. Vettel has built up some “fast car karma” during his championship years, and is now paying it off!

          1. @fluxsource, @patrickl – The McLaren was a very good car. He was bound to rack up some results. Hamilton had a stellar season in 2007. There was no pressure on him to perform where there was massive one on Alonso. Hamilton is a massive talent there is no doubt.

            Though in fact it was not Vettel but Hamilton who got handed that competetive car every season from the start. Vettel fought his way up through that one race at Sauber to winning in a STR. Something Hamilton never had to do. Hamilton never won in terrible cars, a myth kept alive only by his own fans. Yes, the 2009 McLaren wasn’t that super but neither was Heikki in it to state it was a bad car.

            In 2009, the first season Vettel had a proper car he took it right to Button on his first attempt which counts at least for as much as Hamilton his 2007. He won his third race in his first race winning car.

            Since then he drove to the title in both 2010 and 2012 in cars that were only marginally faster than the competition. Cars not even close to as fast as Hamilton his 2014 Mercedes.

            The ecuse Vettel never had to fight super teammates is also plain nonsense. Because how can you even know they weren’t and Vettel wasn’t just actually that much faster. Besides, it’s not like Kovalainen or Button are that massive benchmarks either. Rosberg isn’t proving one to be too. To add to that, Hamilton has finished behind Alonso every year Vettel took the title whilst always being in a better car.

            People are just looking for the most simple excuses to downrate Vettel, grabbing every opportunity to hit on him whenever they can. It only shows once again how bias many are and can’t form an objective opinion.

            Even more so people do this because it is Vettel. They don’t like him for some fantasy reason so his performance is worthless. Vettel is on par with Hamilton in every aspect of racing and it is nonsense to suggest otherwise on the basis he had one bad season, or he had the best car all his career, or he lost our to Ricciardo (wich wasn’t a rookie, it was his thid year),…

          2. @xtwl While I dispute some of the points you made, I think you’re missing the overall point. I wasn’t claiming that one driver was more worthy than another. Nor that one was better than the other. But F1 fans watched Hamilton win a championship in a car that wasn’t the fastest, then endure several years of not having the machinery to challenge adequately challenge for the championship (and no, I’m not forgetting his own meltdown in ’11). Vettel is now going through that same process.

            When Vettel one four championships in a row, he hadn’t gone through this difficult period. Rightly or wrongly, it makes it harder to people who aren’t specific fans of him to consider him deserving of the equipment or titles.

            That said, I have a sneaking suspicion that you’re falling foul of your own criticism, and are unable to form an objective opinion…

          3. @fluxsource Well, you can never form a complete objective opinion, noboyd can because then it would be fact and not opinion. I do think it’s easier for me as I’m not a fan of either of them. And I’m not even here fighting for you to say Vettel is better for all we know Hamilton is indeed better right now. But saying Vettel does not deserve his titles or he only did it because of the car is a bridge to far.

            I did understand your point the first time. People just like to remember whatever fits their cause/opinon and forget the rest and it seems those who dislike Vettel have a very select memory indeed. Sure, there’ll be some fanatic Hamilton dislikers too.

          4. PorscheF1 (@xtwl) It’s really not a question of disliking Vettel, at least in many people’s cases. I don’t much like how Red Bull won their championships (circumventing the rules but getting round FIA tests: that seems to be more or less a consensus). Vettel can’t be blamed for that, though. The issue really is to do with his range. He has improved since the ‘crash kid’ days but it seems self-evident he lacks the innate racing talent of a Hamilton or Verstappen, or the skill and acumen of an Alonso. I thought he responded well this season and was starting to revise my view a bit, at least in terms of what seemed a sharp decline last year. The low par performance in Bahrein where the pressure got to him means it’s still an open question.

          5. Lets not forget Torro Rosso and earlier the Minardi team had never had a podium before Vettel and he won a race in it in his 1st year as well as being youngest ever race winner. In 2009 Red Bull had never won a race then Vettel arrived. Ferrari are all of a sudden looking good when he went there and he won his 2nd race. These are quirks of stats same with Hamilton. Anyone can pick and choose stats from previous years as pleases their opinions and I guess there is no end point to arguing back as knowone will suddenly turn round and say yes you are right. There is no right as nothing is fact when trying to say who is better than the other. This debate is like trying to find the last digit of Pi. I will stick my neck out and say I have no idea who is better only matters who wins this year and then reset for the next year, then the year after and so on. Too many variables in looking into who is best F1 is a great big complex matrix of performance the driver being one part and to attempt to distil this is daft when it comes to the sharp end of driver talent.

        3. @xtwl Vettel won two WDC’s by driving through from the back of the field. That should be proof enough that he can do wheel to wheel racing.

          There is no perfect racer and Vettel isn’t one either. What he has done though is maximize the advantage he got from cars with a very stable rear and accounted for 4 WDC’s to his name. Not many can say they have done that, have they.

          There will be doubters, can’t make them get the point when they just want to oppose Vettel.

          1. *one not two WDC. Two races though in Abu Dhabi and Brazil. He didn’t win but did enough to secure the title after coming through the field.

          2. “Vettel won two WDC’s by driving through from the back of the field. That should be proof enough that he can do wheel to wheel racing.”

            Not sure if it is wheel to wheel racing or pure car, when you overtake 5-6 cars in less than a lap…

            Despite his superior car, to williams, he couldnt get passed bottas last time around… We know Ferrari is the best of the rest behind Mercedes, but I dont believe Vettel showed any talent as of yet… Yes Ferrari won race, and challenged Mercedes, but mainly only strategy and luck…

            Also Mercedes for some reasons, are not in a rush to speed up… Not sure if they are told to slow down or they are having some reliability issues, but they seem to be over cautious in all races…

          3. @mysticus

            Despite Alonso being the best driver on the current grid, couldnt overtake Petrov in Abu Dhabi, 2010.
            Despite Hamilton being the (arguably) Second best driver or at par with Alonso, couldnt overtake a Sauber of Hulkenburg in Korea 2013, when Mercedes was faster than Saubers. Infact in the same race Alonso also saw gearbox of that Sauber for majority of the race.

            By the look of it, it seems that these two drivers are also not capable of overtaking cars.

          4. @mayank

            do you mean Mercedes had the fastest single lap performance in 2013? was not so fast over race distance/performance… not apples to oranges… ferrari on this race was fast on race distance as well as single laps… statistics shows it clearly…

          5. @mysticus

            I never said Mercedes had fastest single lap pace in 2013 and not so fast in race. Also I am not comparing apples with oranges.

            I only meant that just like Vettel (in Bahrain) even Hamilton and Alonso are prone to see gearbox of a slower car. It is not as if Vettel had committed any crime and everyone is going after him. Every driver have their off days..Vettel had one in Bahrain.

            Secondly, if you think Ferrari were fastest in the race then you are wrong. Last time I checked Bahrain GP result, Hamilton in Mercedes won the race by some 3+ seconds. The fastest lap set by Kimi were on soft tyres and also on lighter fuel load due to different strategy adopted by Ferrari team. So clearly it is bit useless to state as a fact. Infact Mercedes still is the fastest car out there as shown in qualifying where they have pole position in every race uptil now in this season and that too with some good margin.

            I never wanted to criticize either Alonso or Hamilton, but the plain hatred towards Vettel by many people here is just senseless. These three drivers are the best in the current grid and on their day, no one could match them.

            The way Hamilton is driving in this season, I dont think even Vettel or Alonso could have challenged him in the same car…. Its just the same way Vettel was driving his car in 2011 or second half of 2013 season. The car and driver are not different entity, rather they are one….W06 in hands of Hamilton and RB7/9 in hands of Vettel.

            I just cant understand why people cant appreciate where appreciation is due, instead they will do everything to make the other person down.

          6. @mayank it is just a comment, didnt criticize you by the way, i just criticized your comments :) sorry if i hurt your feelings .. i have no attachment to drivers as they win/loose i get nothing but joy only… it is entertainment when you are you just watching mate, cool down.

    3. Hamilton proved himself from his first races in Formula 1 when he took on and beat a two-times world champion in the same car, and beat him in his rookie season. That’s just a basic fact. Vettel, undoubtedly talented, simply hasn’t been up against the same level of team mate in the same car, nor as he really convincingly shown that he can race on track, passing and defending, with anywhere near the same level of skill as Hamilton or a number of other drivers. Last year he was trounced by Riicciardo. This year is a real test, up against Raikkonen and maybe the Mercedes if Ferrari can get closer. So maybe will finally get a better idea of Vettel’s standing.

      1. maybe will finally get a better idea of Vettel’s standing.

        Translation – “If Vettel gets beaten by Raikkonen this year we can conclude once and for all that’s he’s not a good driver, while if Vettel beats Raikkonen this season the question of whether he’s a good driver will remain open. Those are the only two possibilities my mind is open to.”

      2. Lets not forget that Hamilton was the most prepared rookie ever to enter F1. He had driven 30k yes 30k miles in an F1 car before lining up on the grid and Mercedes /Mclaren invested a lot of money in him.

    4. Of course the car is most important, but you can simply tell from the drivers skills on track that Vettel is not on par with Alonso and Hamilton.

      Webber’s car did fail a whole lot more than Vettels. Especially when it mattered most. Webber also suffered from poor strategy choices because the team always helped Vettel first. At some point Webber was even sacrificed to force Alonso on a poor strategy. While Webber actually still had a chance of becoming WDC himself.

      There is ample porrf that Webber’s 2nd drivership cost him lots.

      The last race showed that Rosberg suffers no such fate. He even got to stop first which almost put Hamilton in trouble, wiping out his 5 second lead.

      The reason people say Vettel is only good when he starts from pole and drives the fastest car is because when he didn’t start from pole things usually don’t work out for him. He is not good at overtaking or at dealing with pressure.

      Of course there are one or two examples of him overtaking, but there are many times more examples of him getting stuck behind a (much) slower car (last race behind Bottas for instance). Or put him under some pressure and he spins off or something (last race Rosberg pressured him off track for instance)

      And then last season pretty much confirmed the notion even more when he didn’t have the fastest car and got showed up massively by a new kid on the block.

      Especially in his early years he also kept crashing a lot for no good reason. He could have been WDC already in 2009 if he hadn’t crashed so often and/or if he had been able to overtake like Button did.

      Vettel is very good at qualifying, but he is lacking in other area’s. That he’s not in the Senna, Schumacher, Alonso, Hamilton league is what people mean when they say those things. Usually in reply to people saying he’s the “best evar” because he got 4 WDC’s.

      1. @patrickl It’s funny reading that and thinking you actually believe your own nonsense.

        He is not good at overtaking or at dealing with pressure.

        I mean, that is just laughable and sad from your side. There is absolutely no groud to base that statement. Unless you also think that of Hamilton because he also made a mistake in Bahrein…

        Again, I have no problem with you not liking Vettel but your comments about his racing don’t even come close to the actual objective truth.

        Just rubbish.

        1. It’s not just one mistake. He has been stuck behind slower cars many times and he has been pressured into mistakes a lot too.

          Just in the last race alone he showed both.

          If anything, it’s sad that you can’t see the facts. Just rubbish indeed.

          1. Which driver has not been stuck behind slower drivers many times? It’s a commonplace in F1. Alonso and Hamilton have been stuck behind slower drivers many times. The difference is that in their cases excuses are made for them. Alonso’s being unable to get past Petrov is not used as proof that he’s a bad driver, instead Ferrari are blamed for “bad strategy”.

          2. @patrickl Monza 2011 (HAM beg=hind MSC while Button breezes past, Abu dhabi 2010………….)

          3. @patrickl Monza 2011, Hamilton got his ass handed to him by Schumacher lap after lap after lap, while Button breezzed past both of them. Brawn eventually had to tell Schumacher to let him through.

          4. Yeah, really cute, but that’s obviously not how that works. A single counter example doesn’t undo years of examples demonstrating the general point I made.

            There is at least a dozen instances where Vettel got stuck behind a (much) slower car. Even without the driver in front defending to the death.

            It’s depressing that I even have to explain basic logic like that.

          5. @patrickl
            “A single counter example doesn’t
            undo years of examples
            demonstrating the general point I

            Give us a dozen examples

          6. @patrickl
            You need another example where both Hamilton’s and Alonso’s a$s was handed to them?

            Korea 2013.

            And please give us a dozen of examples where Vettel was stuck behind a slower car.

      2. I seriously doubt that anyone that has watched the past few seasons can make such claims about Vettel and actually believe them (unless you just don’t like him at all).You have made some arguments regarding Vettel’s abilities and almost all of them are completely wrong:

        Webber’s car did fail a whole lot more than Vettels. Especially when it mattered most
        No it didn’t. Actually there was a page on this site the counted the mechanical failures on both drivers and it showed the they had pretty much the same amount of failures. And especially Vettel had more retirements (most from the lead) than Webber. All Webber had was usually altenator failures that cost him some podium finishes.

        At some point Webber was even sacrificed to force Alonso on a poor strategy. While Webber actually still had a chance of becoming WDC himself.
        Again no. In Abu Dhabi 2010, Webber hit the wall and after that he lost some of his speed. Red Bull pitted him to put fresh tires, and Ferrari (who at the time was only looking what Webber did, not thinking that Vettel was also for the championship) looking that Webber was faster after the pit-stop, pitted Alonso. The fact that they both weren’t able to pass Petrov’s Renault had nothing to do with ”preferential treatment on Vettel”.
        After 2010 with all the changes in the regulations, Webber wasn’t able to adapt properly (unlike Vettel) and thus he was never again in contention for the championship.

        The last race showed that Rosberg suffers no such fate. He even got to stop first which almost put Hamilton in trouble, wiping out his 5 second lead.
        The reason Rosberg stopped first was to cover Vettel and ensure Mercedes 1-2. By pitting first he undercutted Hamilton and resulted closing the gap on HAM. Other than that occasion i challenge you to find another situation that ANY team didn’t pit the leading driver first. Teams always did that and they will continue to do it in the future.

        He is not good at overtaking or at dealing with pressure.
        All drivers sometimes make mistakes under pressure or while pushing the car to its limits. Vettel has, Hamilton has (Brazil 2014 and the entire 2011 comes to mind), Alonso has (crashed with Vettel and retired in Malaysia 2013 and Belgium 2013 without retiring and most notably Japan 2012 where he crashed with Raikkonen,retired and lost the points advantage he had and led to losing the championship). The fact that Vettel had a bad day in the office doesn’t erase that he is a great driver that won 4 WDC.
        And on overtaking, Vettel has proven again and again that he more than able to overtake when he needs to (Silverstone 2010,Abu Dhabi 2012,Brazil 2012 and many others).

        there are many times more examples of him getting stuck behind a (much) slower car (last race behind Bottas for instance).
        He was stuck behind Bottas who had higher top speed than Vettel. Again this doesn’t happen usually just on Vettel. Hamilton was stuck for almost an entire race behind Hulkenberg (Korea 2013) and Alonso lost a chamionship stuck behind Petrov (Abu Dhabi 2010).

        I don’t believe that Vettel or Hamilton or Alonso are the best for some reason, until they retire from action and we can all judge where they belong between all-time-greats. But the blind hate and the fact that people remember only the facts the want,to form an opinion, (usually towars Vettel) is just wrong. I seriously believe that people don’t rate Vettel high enough (although they should) is just because he didn’t race or win those chamionships with a fans’ favourite team like Ferrari or McLaren (like Hamilton,Raikkonen and Alonso have), he happened to win in a unpopular Red Bull. To many people he is just a kid who got the best car and won those chamionships easily (just like Prost,Senna,Schumacher,Alonso and Hamilton have in the past).

        1. All drivers sometimes make mistakes under pressure or while pushing the car to its limits
          Yet some drivers get pressured into mistakes more often than others. People like Vettel and Rosberg are clear examples of this.

          It’s like saying Maldonado is not crash prone because Button crashed once in a lifetime too.

          1. Vettel has perhaps the best record when it comes to crashes of any driver on the grid. It’s certainly superior to that of Hamilton or Alonso. The last time Vettel crashed out of a race? Turkey 2010, five years ago. If Alonso crashed as rarely as Vettel does he’d likely have two or three more titles to his name.

        2. Vettel started in a Torro Rosso and had his first win with that team. How was that a top car ? Unlike Hammy who started off in Mclaren a top car

      3. Weirdly, virtually every F1 team on the gird would disagree with your ridiculous assertion. Why on earth would Ferrari hire a driver, at considerable cost I might add, who was as mediocre as you seem to believe Vettel is? Tell me that Vettel could not have his pick of teams who would be more than happy to have him. The bottom line is this, no F1 driver ever won a championship with a crap car…it is the nature of the sport. Fangio routinely quit teams to follow the best car as did Senna and every other multi-title dirver. This is MOTORsport, not a personality contest. You may imagine that you would not like Mr. Vettel if you ever actually met him, but you would be foolish to deny that he is an excellent driver whose name is already with Schumacher, Senna, Prost, and the other greats.
        The three best drivers on the gird right now are the ones with multiple WDC titles to their name: Vettel, Alonso, and Hamilton…and they were all in the best car when they won.

        1. Well with Alonso they hired the best driver they could and he got fed up with them and left. Hamilton was tied up at Mercedes so they had to go for something else. One might argue they’d better gone for Ricciardo, but perhaps contracts got in the way there too.

          Hamilton wasn’t in the best car in 2008. The Ferrari was faster. Even Massa was fighting for the WDC in that car. Although largely helped by Allan Donnely’s personal fued against Hamilton too. Alonso wasn’t in the best car for his WDC’s either.

          1. @patrickl

            In 2005 & 2006, when Alonso won his WDC – Renault won the constructors champoionship. How come it wasnt the best car for those 2 years?

      4. Webber’s car did fail a whole lot more than Vettels.

        Stop repeating this. It is factually untrue and has been proven to be factually untrue many times.

        you can simply tell from the drivers skills on track that Vettel is not on par with Alonso and Hamilton.

        No, you cannot.

        At some point Webber was even sacrificed to force Alonso on a poor strategy. While Webber actually still had a chance of becoming WDC himself.

        Again, this isn’t even you offering on opinion on a debatable topic, you’re stating something which is simply factually false. Presumably you keep doing this because you find your fake ‘facts” more palatable than the truth, but your feelings on a topic do not have the power to alter reality. Webber pitted in Abu Dhabi 2010 because he told his team his tyres were shot, not due to some nefarious RB scheme to “sacrifice” him. Again, this is all part of the public record, if you were interested in it.

        The reason people say Vettel is only good when he starts from pole and drives the fastest car is because when he didn’t start from pole things usually don’t work out for him.

        Yet another outright falsehood. Vettel has just as many great drives through the field as Hamilton does. Some examples include China 2007 (17th to 4th), Monaco 2008 (19th to 5th), Brazil 2009 (15th to 4th), Abu Dhabi 2012 (pit lane to 3rd), and Spain 2014 (15th to 4th).

        Especially in his early years he also kept crashing a lot for no good reason.

        Vettel has been involved in fewer crashes in his career than Hamilton has. You could look it up. But I suppose doing that would be not be as emotionally satisfying as believing the things you wish to believe.

      5. Webber’s car did fail a whole lot more than Vettels. Especially when it mattered most. Webber also suffered from poor strategy choices because the team always helped Vettel first. At some point Webber was even sacrificed to force Alonso on a poor strategy. While Webber actually still had a chance of becoming WDC himself.

        When did you create your account? Was it before https://www.racefans.net/groups/f1/forum/topic/vettel-webber-and-reliability-at-red-bull/ ?

        And do you remember WEB’s tyres hitting a wall in Abu Dhabi 2010?

        The last race showed that Rosberg suffers no such fate. He even got to stop first which almost put Hamilton in trouble, wiping out his 5 second lead.

        I’m not starting to think that never mind having an account here, when did you start watching F1? Do you think what Mercedes did at that particular round of pitstops is something they normally do (which the way your reply was written seems to imply)?

        1. I’m now starting to think…………

        2. Yeah right, because it’s just the number that counts? That list doesn’t even include all the times that Webber was disadvantaged in strategy.

          Apparently I’ve been watching F1 longer than you if you thing Mercedes letting Rosberg stop first is “normal” when Hamilton is in the lead.

          1. @patrickl

            Normally any team would like to secure maximum points at any given race i.e. 43 points ( in current rules). What Mercedes did at last race when they pitted Rosberg before Hamilton, was to try and secure those 43 points.

            If Mercedes didnt pit Rosberg first, the gap between him and Vettel would have been even more big, and maybe as a result Vettel would not have pushed the car more than in its limit. Mercedes at that time would have lost their 2nd position.

            Hamilton nearly lost his 5 second lead, not merely because of pitting Rosberg first, but he had a slow pit stop.

            Mercedes arent fool that they would deliberately loose their chance of getting maximum points by pitting Hamilton first, when even the armchair experts like us can also clearly see that by doing this, Mercedes would loose their 2nd position.

  4. ColdFly F1 (@)
    22nd April 2015, 1:37

    I don’t think we should be used to finance their R&D because they will produce that engine anyway.

    That’s exactly what I told Apple when I bought my latest iPhone.

    1. @coldfly that’s an unfair analogy, since you live in a free market where you can choose what phone you buy. F1 teams don’t live in a free market, since the regulations tightly define the engines (PUs if you prefer) that they must use.

      If you don’t like the cost or features of your iPhone, you can buy a Samsung, or HTC, or one of numerous other brands of smartphone at a range of prices to match your budget.

      Sauber, and the other struggling teams, didn’t have a choice. They had a product they liked and could afford (the previous generation V8s) but were forced by the regulations to buy a much more expensive product (hybrid V6s) which benefits Sauber not one bit but apparently is good for the manufacturers’ marketing and (perhaps) R&D interests.

      A fairer comparison would be if everyone was forced to use iPhones, and then Apple decided to double the cost of their phone to fund the development of a bunch of new features that don’t benefit you. That’s the situation the back and middle of the grid find themselves in.

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        22nd April 2015, 6:02

        Don’t take it too seriously; I was clearly a bit facetious. @tdog

        But if you really want to compare:
        – ‘regulations tightly define the engines’ – same for my phone – just check all the approval stamps!
        – ‘you can buy a Samsung, or HTC’ – there are 4 PU suppliers, and there is no limit to how many new ones can enter (even make your own)!
        – ‘didn’t have a choice’ – I liked my analogue phone; current network does not support it.
        – ‘A fairer comparison’ – as I said I was a bit facetious!

      2. @tdog

        See there you are wrong they have a choice, they can build there own engine. Nothing is stopping them. My be the cost is. I’m tired of ppl how believes that the smaller teams need to get things for free. Bigger teams loses a lot more money in F1 then smaller team but because they have backing that’s ok. The problem in F1 is that teams spend more money then they have.
        The funny thing is what ppl do not understand about one team spending more money then they have is that they are forcing other teams to spend money hey do not have. So the cycle goes on and on.

        1. But the big teams have more money to spend, and do, which is what forces the smaller teams to spend more money than they have after Bernie/DeltaTopco take 37% of net income out of F1.

          1. Let me show you how easy it will be to save F1. I will get all the teams to sign a spending cap of 350 milj a year. I will get all teams manufacturing backing and make them not reliable on sponsor . I will be able to save all European races and even get the German and French grand prix back. Ticks will not cost more then 20 to 30 pounds. I will even get Grandprix back on free to air. All i need is for 20% of ppl how watches F1 to donate 50 pounds a year to a fund and all this is possible. It is that simple but then all you ppl how complain about F1 and the cost and wants the manufactures to give up millions of pounds will not even give up that 50 pounds to save the sport.
            I can even show you how the money will be decided to make all this possible and it is.

          2. Which 20%?

          3. 20% of the 425 milj ppl that watch F1 last year

          4. And how will you get F1 teams to abandon their investments in technology? Why do you think the wind tunnel ban failed? If I spent a couple hundred million on a wind tunnel that won’t depreciate off my books for 15 years, I’m not throwing it away after 5 years. The big teams built their infrastructure based on the rules and the trends in the rules and are not going to walk away from that investment.

          5. Let me put it this way. If 20% of the ppl how watch F1 last year gives only 50 ponds a year you will get Roughly 4.25 Bilj pounds.

            If you go and say i will give every team 300 milj if they sing up to a cap of 350 milj you will spend 3 bilj of the money and the cap will stop bigger teams from spending more. There is no team that will refuse it. Secondly witch manufacture will not want to be in F1 if they just have to spend 50milj of there own money.The rewards are to great not to. You can even tell Bernie to pay the other 50 milj per team and he will be smiling all the way.

            We still have 1.25 bilj left.

            If you go to Bernie and tell him to get 9 European race and we will pay him 450 milj for the 9 races, Bernie will get as 9 European races with the condition that they do not have to pay for the race but tickets to the race may not exceed more the 30 pounds per ticket for the ave. person.

            For the remaining 800 milj that is left we ask Bernie to give as the rights to broadcast the race on the Internet and lift the ban so we can repeat the hole race.

            F1 fixed. But here comes the problem. I will not even make a milj because the problem F1 has is not the viewers problem and way would they pay 50 pound a year to fix it. But just think what you could do if 30% of the 425 milj ppl how watched F1 last year just payed 50 Pound.

      3. What reason would the big teams have for supplying engines to other teams if not to offset the cost of development? If for example Ferrari gained constructor points based on Sauber’s finishing position, there would be an incentive to not just supply them with engines but other tech as well to ensure they finish in the points. But as that is not the case the only incentive is cost mitigation and if Sauber don’t like the price they are being charged, they can try another manufacturer or build their own. So yes they do have options other than Ferrari and yes, Ferrari are right to include the cost of R&D into what they charge their customers.

  5. Monisha Kaltenborn shoots another gem to show she has no business running a serious organization.

  6. @willwood it says 1,00bhp shouldn’t it say 1,000bhp?

    1. @dstaplet13 No, this is how radical the proposed 2017 engine changes are that we’re actually going to see the power units drop in power, not increase…

      (…I’ll change it…)

      1. LOL! Thanks I needed that.

  7. JA’s excellent analysis of the MB-AMG V SFR battle provides us with the mental stimulation of F1 racing tactics, chess players will see the paralells, what he doesn’t mention is the visceral excitement of cars on the edge of control battling lap after lap for position whether it comes with deafening noise or not. Tactics bought into play by vanishing tyre grip may provide some suspense but they sure are a drag on the excitement quotient.

  8. “While we fully understand as a customer that a manufacturer needs to showcase their core technology and latest technology, it should be at an affordable level,” Kaltenborn added.

    “I don’t think we should be used to finance their R&D because they will produce that engine anyway.

    Well, hate to break it to you Monisha but the customer will end up paying for that R&D. It’s why the bloody engine costs so much more than the V8’s, given a few more years that price will come down.

    1. Actually it cost so much because there was no independent supplier offering a cheaper alternative and the reason there was no indepent supplier was because the rules were so prescriptive that there was no opportunity to find a cheaper way to be competitive.

      1. @hohum, in terms of independent suppliers, Cosworth actually have a conceptual design for an F1 spec powertrain ready to go into production.
        The problem is, most of the teams are tied into a particular engine supplier – Sauber, for example, are effectively locked into a deal with Ferrari given that they are dependent on them for Ferrari’s transmission system as well – so there is no real customer base for Cosworth.

      2. It’s also because the FIA subsidised the cost of the V8 engines (part of Max Mosely’s cost cutting plan), so the V8s cost customer teams about half as much as they would’ve normally cost. The V6 PUs received no such subsidisation from the FIA, as Todt had taken over from Mosely as head of the FIA (and plans to reduce costs to £40m a year had been scrapped due to the strategy group).

    2. I dont think you understand what Monisha is talking about or at least you’ve missed the things going on that allow 2017 engine rules to be blown out of the water by majority vote. Eitherway, the current engine regulations are temporary at best (1-2yrs).

  9. Does anyone care what Kaltenborn has to say? Her treatment of Sutil and Van Der Garde clearly show that she is not competent or ethical enough to be running a Formula 1 team.

    1. I couldn’t agree more. Kaltenborn has to exit Sauber, I’m not taking that team serious anymore until she does.

    2. Since when was Formula 1 about being ethical? Kaltenborn knew exactly what she was doing, and that led to the team’s survival.

      1. Its not about being ethical its about having some shred of dignity. Kaltenborn went from being a strong leading woman in f1 to being nothing. No matter what she talks about i cant take anything of it serious. As reacent as the Bahrain weekend she was still claming that they couldnt get VDG to race becouse they didnt have seatbelts that would fit and nonsense like that.

  10. Engine changes should not be allowed in 2017, instead it should be a target for 2020… engine should be cheaper to make & should be durable, even if it means increasing it’s size a bit and reducing engine stress. One engine should be made to last for all season, same rule should be for the gearbox too. Changing engine & gearbox should mean that the person starts from the back for all the remaining races. there should be decent restrictions on chassis too, so that we don’t get ugly cars ever again. larger tires (width) which don’t go ever the cliff like the current butter tyres.

  11. Are we going to drag Kalternbron through the mud every time she opens her mouth now? She made a mistake, get over it. Before the entire driver debacle nobody had a bad word about it. Even more so many praised her for her role in the team while being a female among all other male team principals.

    1. +1. For once, I completely agree with you @xtwl.

    2. Yes we do, she damaged the team terribly, and it was not just a mistake, it were several mistakes. Besides, it was beyond mistakes, because she deliberately lied to people. You can’t trust her anymore, so you can’t take her serious when she says something. Worst part: she thinks she did the right thing.

      1. Their sponsors (the few they have) haven’t withdrawn yet like ING, Mutua Madrilena did after the Renault disaster. Why are you getting so worked up? Are you Giedo by any chance :)

        1. ING was forced out by the dutch government (who had to rescue ING). They just used the Piquet scandal as an easy out.

          Being a Spanish company they sponsor Alonso. So not much use for them being on a Renault if Alonso is not driving there. I’m guessing they simply used the same trick to get out of their contract.

          1. @patrickl It might have been for the reasons you mention but they did bring it forward after revelation of the scandal. But there seems to be no such move from Sauber’s sponsors after this episode. That is the point I wanted to highlight.

          2. Still, the point is, these sponsors (openly) wanted out before the scandal.

            The current Sauber sponsors endured their desastrous 2014 season, so if they wanted out they would have already done so.

          3. This only tells that they are OK with the way things are in Sauber. They could have opted out citing this reason considering that there is a precedent set previously as well i.e. sponsors pulling out of mid season.

          4. No, it just doesn’t.

          5. Well, we have to agree to disagree then. I support Monisha though. F1 has seen TP’s do much more ethically bankrupt things than to sign two drivers for one seat.

    3. ColdFly F1 (@)
      22nd April 2015, 9:06

      @xtwl, I agree; in our comments we seem to be playing the (wo)man rather than the ball too often.

      But still I don’t think that the point was argued very well by Sauber’s team principle!

  12. The whole idea of the tokens was to have an affordable engine, so to start a new development just as that is about to pay off would be crazy. But the price should be coming down now, and Bernie will have to make it.

    1. Isn’t the idea that they will use pretty much the same engine, but with possibly an increased fuel flow?

      As Toto Wolff explained, by then they will be near the output already with normal development anyway. So they would need to adjust parts for reliability reasons anyway.

  13. …there is no reason not to do it but at the moment, we don’t know.

    That’s right, think positive!
    I hope they don’t take a lazy, cheap shortcut and just rebrand their outdated gravy-train of a series with daft rules, ugly old cars, rich daddy’s kids and former champions in the dole queue. The top feeder series needs refreshing with designs and thinking from Super Formula, Indy Lights and Formula E. Performance, engineering and strategy that fits in properly just below F1. Maybe competing chassis and engine constructors (a good first step for new F1 teams) or what’s the point of Domenicali’s investigations?
    And whilst I don’t know the commercial details of GP2 and who profits from it, it all smells pretty bad.

  14. There should be a caption competition with the Kaltenborn/Williams picture!

    1. “… and the fourth one was Sutil, the fifth was…”

  15. COTD is right but hasn’t given a reason for it which i think is their nationalities, Hamilton is a Brit so he’ll have more people cheering for him, plus the added bonus of showmanship which Bernie had pointed out before. Also Rosberg and Hamilton relationship is more controversial than Vettel and Webber’s was until the multi21 incident, this factor is very appealing and entertaining to the fans although most would deny it.

  16. It would seem a simple cost saving strategy for the FIA to make a rule that any engine supplier has to agree to supply up to n teams, cannot refuse to supply a team (up to the maximum of n), and must supply engines to those teams at a set cost of £x. The cost of those engines could then be set at a level that would ensure the smaller teams could afford without threatening their existence. Such a cost limit could also limit the amount of R&D an engine supplier would do potentially allowing the regulations to be opened up.

  17. Mark Webber 6300k in 30 hrs.
    Jenson Button 6,300 meters in 72 hours at Bahrain

    Mark 1:0 Jenson

    1. Actually, speaking of which, did Jenson actually use the Pit lane entry all weekend at Bahrain?

      1. I guess for one of the installation laps in free practice, but not sure. @dragoll

    2. Well played :)

  18. If the engine regs change again, how will costs come down? More R&D, more development = more cost? I except not everyone is happy with the current PU but as mentioned many times on this forum it’s not all about horsepower, there’s many more reasons and I don’t need to list them. Monisha brought something to my attention though and I’ll use RBR as an example. Heading to the 5th round, DR is already on his 4th engine for the year, how many PU’s is it going to take him to finish the season? Yes there has been reliability problems that Renault have said they will rectify by Spain but they have been saying this all year and what if they don’t? What’s the cost? Not just for the engines, but then there’s penalties which in turn effect results, which effects investments (sponsors) which effects the teams longevity not forgetting the prospects of poor Danny Ric. Financially you may argue RBR can afford it and it’s partly to do with their package but they are just an example. How would a smaller team cope with sort of cost, I’m sure it hurt Lotus last year. What if Caterham (who used RBR’s drive train) survived and were in the same situation? Would they even make the winter break?

  19. My view of the Ham/Vet best car thing: Hamilton now is in the same situation as Vettel during his title years, though I rate Hamilton’s team-mate higher than Vettel’s (well, I did during 2014…)

    As for their status in the sport, both are very good drivers, but neither has yet shown sufficient quality of performance for me to consider them all-time greats.

  20. Agree with that article from James Allen about if Raikkonen could have won the race. I personally do think he could have, but indeed his Q3 hot lap let him down and Vettel held him up for too long.

    Glad finally someone else finally realizes that it wasn’t the lap where Alonso vertook him on fresh 3 second a lap faster tyres which cost him the win.

    I wonder what truth there is in Vettel’s claim that Mercedes was sandbagging in the middle stint. They might very well have lost Rosberg’s 2nd place because they were trying to preserve the tyres too much. I mean they were going round on softs at the same pace as Raikkonen was doing on mediums

  21. These current V6 power units are more expensive than the V8’s were the last few years we had V8’s but there not the most expensive engine’s in F1 have ever been & not really that much more than the V8’s were when they were introduced in 2006.

    Engine cost’s were overall much higher in the past when they used to go through significantly more engine’s over not just a season but a race weekend when it wasn’t uncommon to see 3-4 engine changes through practice/qualifying & into Sunday morning. Then you had testing which also required engine’s & again it wasn’t uncommon to see engine’s changed a few times during a 2-3 day test.

    Also before you started seeing long life engines & development restrictions the engine’s used to cost more because they were constantly been developed with at times completely new specifications run from race to race & a fair portion of that cost was moved onto customers.

    Regarding Sauber, I’m fairly sure that before BMW brought them in 2006 they were getting discounts on there engine supply from Ferrari in part for running Ferrari contracted drivers as either race or test drivers.
    The 1st year of the deal was 1997 when they started the year with Nicola Larini who was a Ferrari test driver at the time, Jean Alesi got there for 98/99 in part because of his previous links to Ferrari & Mika Salo’s race seat at Sauber in 2000 was paid for by Ferrari as thanks for him stepping in for Schumacher in 1999 & giving away the win at Hockenheim, There there was Felipe Massa in 2002/2004/2005.

    1. BTW i’ve been told that Jules Bianchi was going to Sauber this year with Ferrari paying for the drive.

      Bianchi’s subsequent accident at Suzuka is what put Sauber in trouble because they had Bianchi/Van Der Garde signed to contracts & the funding to run them. But with Jules out they lost the money he would have brought them from Ferrari & what VDG was bringing wasn’t enough so they had to change there plan & go with Nasr/Ericsson.

      1. Imagine Bianchi in that much improved 2015 Sauber …

    2. Very good point about the V8 (and probably every newly developed engine) having been very expensive @gt-racer. The only reason they were cheaper the last years of their cycle was because an engine cost cap was put in place together with the limits on number of engine.
      I think that if the manufacturers agree on an engine cost cap again, that would help the small teams a lot.

  22. Some new information about Ferrari’s PU development on JAonF1:

    One of the reasons why the Ferrari is such a strong race car is because it has an aggressive engine mode, with a strong battery and an efficient compressor, which it is able to use all race long, whereas Mercedes has to dip into a more conservative mode at times during races. This gives Ferrari a chance and means that over a race distance there is now little to choose between the two power units.

    …but what is perhaps less well known is that Ferrari has an ace up its sleeve in races this year on the ERS and turbo sides of the power unit. In particular they have a very strong battery and a small compressor, which is very efficient and rival engineers say that this means they can run at a reasonably aggressive preset mode for the whole race, whereas Mercedes has a lower regime in its race mode, to which it sometimes need to descend in races.

    Can anybody explain this a bit further? What does a smaller compression has to do with efficient energy recovery?

    1. Could you give us a link?

  23. I know where RM is coming from it’s a nice stat. You could feel that in 2011 there was nothing that could stop RB from being the best for the whole season and under any circumstance, it felt like either a gross human error or a mechanical failure had to take place, and in those days neither fault was common but more importantly this meant F1 was dreadfully predictable. The best chassis and a driver on form could easily overcome a poorer engine for 4 consecutive titles, it was fair though, but my point is you only could work with driver and chassis to win races. 2015 winter season was much gloomier than 2011 prospects or actual start of the season, it was only after Malaysia that it became evident there was something to look forth to every weekend, there’s a certain level of uncertainty. This feeling is not exclusively due to Malaysia but it is born out of the fact that Ferrari’s PU is closer than Renault’s was in 2014 and that as we are yet to set foot in Europe again, the true 2015 forms are still yet to be established, and this time not only on the chassis and aero department which was irrelevant in 2014 due to the massive PU gap. This time around because of the token situation we at least have the hope that all PU manufacturers can join the party, certainly Honda’s slower but Houlier is right, they are improving and surely they haven’t been experiencing kindergarten levels of reliability as has Renault. In the 21st century you can’t have a piston hitting a valve. All can change it might not it probably won’t, if that’s the case someone gently clobber Rosberg in the head so he can give us a championship.

  24. @patrickl
    “A single counter example doesn’t undo years of examples demonstrating the general point I made”

    Give us a dozen

  25. I think Monisha is right. Spot on! Enzo used to call “garagistas” in a despective way, but truth to be told, garagistas and Ferrari are the “core” of Formula 1. If we turn F1 into an “engine war” we will be at the beginning of the end. We know Ferrari will always compete in F1 as well as Mc Laren and Williams. Sauber, if we can manage finances, will also be part of F1. But that’s it. The rest of the teams come and go. Mercedes threatens to quit if rules are changed, Redbull threatens to quit (both teams) if rules aren’t changed. Renault, as well as Honda, Toyota, Jaguar come and go. They use F1 as a marketing platform, and that’s OK if they play within the rules. But Formula 1 should embrace old time garagistas (Mc Laren, Williams and Sauber) as well as new ones (Force India, Toro Rosso, Manor).
    I’m not saying stop engine R&D , but limit the price you can sell the engines and let everyone buy engines (the very same you are using) from you. This is…let Mercedes buy a Ferrari engine and vice-versa.
    Bernie has been playing with everybody last few years….he always have a couple of teams and a couple of race tracks under the sleeve to cover for “rebels”. (India, Korea, Germany, Valencia out….Bernie pulled Mexico, Abzeirbaijan, Russia, and probably a second USGP). The same happened in 2010……Honda, Toyota, BMW out…..Sauber, Marussia, Caterham, HRT in.
    Bernie is playing his last cards….and depite the fact we, the F1 Fanatics, hate him….he is doing a ton of money.
    So….we need Ferrari and the garagistas…lets take care of this teams….with a healthy F1, Audi, Porsche, Ford….brands will come along.

  26. I think she doesn’t want to pay more money for the engines, otherwise she would like to get more improvement with the advanced ones. I refuse this approach.

  27. I think Kaltenborn should me more concerned about her math and know that 3 is greater then 2.

Comments are closed.