Pirelli 18 inch GP2 tyre, Monaco, Monte-Carlo, 2015

F1 unlikely to switch to 18-inch wheels – Pirelli

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Pirelli 18 inch GP2 tyre, Monaco, Monte-Carlo, 2015In the round-up: Official F1 tyre supplier Pirelli doubts a move to 18-inch wheels will be happen.

Links

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

Pirelli doubts F1 will adopt low-profile tyres (ESPN)

"I've got a feeling we'll end up with a much wider tyre, but on a 13-inch rim. That's my feeling for the direction we are going."

The truth behind why Formula 1 is so difficult to manage (BBC)

"This - and the fact that Pirelli pays handsomely for trackside advertising - is why Ecclestone has made it clear to teams that, as far as he is concerned, Pirelli will get the new contract, even though the FIA is running a full tender process and is expected to invite Michelin to apply."

Renault begins talks over F1 future (Autosport)

"It is no secret we have a binding contract until the end of 2016 so firstly it was to reassure everyone that we will honour that contract. There is no doubt."

Honda confirms F1 engine upgrade for Canadian Grand Prix (Motorsport)

"Jenson Button and Fernando Alonso will have use of an upgraded Honda Formula 1 engine at the Canadian Grand Prix, after the Japanese manufacturer confirmed it will be introducing a performance step this weekend."

Max Mosley labels F1 drivers' salaries 'absurd' (Daily Mail)

"If I was a dictator in the sport, each team would have the same money and you could spend more on the driver or less on the car or vice versa."

Tweets

Comment of the day

@Mattds was at the World Series by Renault at Spa last weekend:

The debut of the RS01 was interesting, the cars look nice and fast and they sound great as well. It was a pity the grid is still very small, out of 13 entries 6 of them were eliminated after turn one in the first race due to collisions and blown-up engines. Made for a rather dull race. I left during race two, but not before I passed at La Source and saw two cars crashing into each other. Conclusion: series has potential, but needs more and better drivers.

The FR3.5 race was a blast. Standing at Bruxelles, which is about halfway down the lap, it was amazing to see Jaafar already up into 11th when the field passed us by the first time. I still need to watch the race on TV (recorded it), because I’m wondering how he pulled that off. He made a good recovery the following laps as well.

Rowland, de Vries and Vaxiviere were impressive as well. De Vries needs more consistency before he can challenge for the title but the duel between Rowland and Vaxiviere (and possibly Jaafar) will be good this year.
@Mattds

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Jayantj, Rahim.Rg and Aditya Fakhri Yahya!

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

The 1978 world champion Mario Andretti won the IndyCar Milwaukee 200 on this day 30 years ago.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

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

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 85 comments on “F1 unlikely to switch to 18-inch wheels – Pirelli”

    1. I don’t get why the budget cap idea gets so much hate. Sure, it’s difficult to enforce, but it would certainly help the sport if introduced. Otherwise, it’s just simply a matter of who spends more money to be at the top. I am probably wrong, but I like to think that motor racing is not about who has more money. Tradition, loyalty for this or that team, love for speed, creativity, talent, all these get overshadowed by money spending, which in the case of F1 has reached wasteful levels… it could be a much cheaper and much more entertaining sport, if only it was run properly.

      1. It is the difficulty that makes it unpopular because fans realise that the major manufacturers have all the facilities in-house, small teams and new entrants don’t, so they have to pay full price to subcontractors and consultants for services that can be obtained by the manufacturers for nothing or a token payment, that is not going to help level the playing field.

      2. I don’t think anyone is saying that limiting budgets would be bad, it’s just that there is no way to enforce it. Surely a better idea would be to reduce costs and fairly distribute the revenue to ensure that all teams can compete without fear of bankruptcy.

      3. Motorsport, across all categories has always been about who has the most money, as money generally buys capable people to find ways to make the car go faster. I would imagine that for a Formula 1 team the major component of their cost is wages, rather than manufacturing. If a budget cap is introduced teams would need to go look at how to meet the budget cap. Two options, decrease manufacturing costs, pretty tough to do, still need machines, tools and materials to build a car, or trim back on staff numbers. Every single time it’s going to be staff numbers that get cut, and that’s why I am against any budget cap in Formula 1 because it would affect the livelihood of many of workers on ordinary wages involved in Formula 1.

        1. This is quite a lame argument. People who work on f1 wouldn’t starve do death if they had to be laid off. These mechanics and engineers and designers could find a job anywhere having “Ferrari f1” or “Mercedes f1” on their CVs.

        2. Very considerate of you @formulales, but not much help to the employees of the teams that go broke, catch 22 ? Once again your approach highlights the problems of a spending cap, the big manufacturers could send bright young employees down to the racing dept to gain experience as an intern whilst paying them a retainer to ensure they return to the main company when they get bored of designing parts for F1 cars.

      4. The world needs to be free. In F1 capping something for the sake of something else ends up with nothing. Everything has a beginning and an end, the rest the middle part is life and F1 is just trying to cut it short.

        1. That’s exactly the problem with “the world”. Being free to waste resources and beat everyone else by sheer spending is driving the planet to ruins. It’s so clear to see that f1 is the reflex of big oil mentality that it hurts to be a fan.

          1. Actually @flig the real problem is not people spending beyond their means, but populating beyond their means.

            1. I’m sorry @hohum, but I must disagree. Do you think, for example, all that extracted oil is mostly used for transporting food to the poor, or supplying new toys to the shops for the big boys and girls of the rich world?

              I think @flig is right here – if we don’t set any boundaries, we will consume it all and more. The spending war is clearly visible in most popular sports nowadays and it’s getting more and more ridiculous. Budget caps (plus draft system) keep American sport franchises like NHL or NBA relatively healthy and competitive, while in Europe few ultra-rich football teams have almost completely dominated the sport.

            2. @pehogarth – yes but NHL/NBA don’t actually have much in the way of costs other than wages, transport and maintaining their ‘home ground’. They don’t have much if anything in the way of R&D and certainly don’t have to design, build, develop and run a complex and technologically advanced piece of hardware every 12 months. Comparing the two is a nonsense.

            3. @asanator – why is it a nonsense? The cost cap idea works in general, the only problem in sports like F1 is how to policy it. But if we don’t try to do it, we will be left in 10 years with two or three teams – because such spending war usually leads to oligopoly or monopoly.

            4. Absolutely no non-sense in my point of view, why are the big teams so good, because they can employ lots of people who can work on multiple projects at the same time, the small teams lack the funding AND the personal, for e.g. Sauber does not have any staff who can come up with a gearbox, they buy it directly from Ferrari, whereas Mercedes probably has 20-30 people working on the gearbox alone and get a better solution gearbox-wise for their car etc.

              Limiting every team with a salary cap on the staff side so that every team has to cope with let’s say 200-250 people would save a lot of money on all teams, mostly the big ones. Maybe the bigger teams still would be on top, but I think all teams could compete on a fair and financially fair ground. At least you have to admit that controlling the Salary for Engineers, Mechanics, etc. is far more realisitc than a Budget Cap on the whole team.

              This is my opinion, but I’m open for discussion.

          2. @flig That gentleman on your avatar was a free man. How can you idolize someone representing what you loath?

            There’s too many rules in F1. Being organized and free is simple in theory.
            The sanctioning body FIA just formulates the sport, since the championship is yearly they should submit an yearly revision of the ruleset, concerning only safety, basic car parameters and rewards(scoring).
            The interested teams then should just file the entry form and prove they are going to show up.
            Finally the FOM manages the image of the sport. The revenue then should be streamed back to the teams and sponsors of the events, with a small portion attributed to who manages the image of the sport and who sanctions the rules. This is how F1 should be run, 3 independent bodies, FIA, Teams and whoever sells the sport FOM/CVC whatever, after that everything is free and whoever wins it, it does by merit, regardless of the method.
            These days you have all 3 bodies intertwined, bias and corrupt, you have Bernie vilified even if a tyrant is just what F1 needs, just like when Rome was about to fall the republic appointed tyrants to disband the corruption cycles.

      5. pxcmerc (@)
        2nd June 2015, 4:28

        like it has been alluded to, most of the rules these days only favor the large manufacturers and suite grid fillers and the select few.

        nobody wants to take risks in F1, people just want easy money and a steady job.

        the “spirit” of F1 is dead if the major manufacturers squeeze out the remaining smaller manufacturers and customer/satellite teams are all that remain.

        here are some rule propositions to think about,

        manufacturers can only sponsor one team, and not provide power units/engines for any other team.

        The restrictions on the power units/engine configurations are dropped except for fuel input.

        leading manufacturers power units/engines are frozen for a year if they are in the top 3.

        1. “manufacturers can only sponsor one team, and not provide power units/engines for any other team.”

          Why shouldn’t a manufacturer be able to provide engines to any other team if they so chose? I don’t see how that is going to make things any better.

      6. What I don’t understand is why don’t the smaller teams create a joint holding company and mass produce the more simple stuff. i.e., the tub and other components. Then instead of having bloated assets and a lot of money reqd to maintain them they could make a pact among themselves and reduce the costs. Yes, the more fancy stuff should be produced in house but the rest could be done so as to reduce costs and stay independent.

        1. …because they’re racers, not suits.

      7. @flig – First, how would a budget cap improve racing on the track?

        Second, how would enforcement of the budget cap and implementing penalties against violating teams be better than watching competition on the track?

        I don’t hate the budget cap, it just won’t work. It is self defeating, wastes time and resources and does not improve competition on the track.

        The budget cap would be much less of a concern if teams received a more equitable share from FOM/CVC.

        1. It would improve racing because with a cap, top teams would not be able to lure away the best designers and engineers and drivers every time: smaller teams would be able to hold them occasionally. Bigger teams wouldn’t be able to invest in each detail much more than smaller teams, etc. In other words: smaller teams would know that if they invest x% of the cap, they should theoretically be x% as fast as the top teams, whereas now smaller teams are struggling to survive with their budgets, while top teams have the sky as their limit.

          1. @flig, maybe you also believe politicians never do favours for the Banks, Mining Co.s and Energy companies whose boards they will have seats on shortly after retiring from politics.

        2. Wrong question. Try “How would a budget cap improve CVC’s profits?”. That’s what Bernie’s paid to do.

      8. Just to add it to your argument. When you have constructor’s championship where one team can try several freshly developed front wing iterations while the other one hopes it can get only one in several months; it’s no constructors championship anymore. It’s trial – error approach and the matter of funding. It strains financial aspect to the limit while engineering wisdom gets secondary importance. It becomes a championship for the rich and stupid, that’s why I believe budget cap is a must, although it will never happen.

      9. Indeed and it’s just utter nonsense that it can’t be checked. try telling to the tax collectors that you cannot keep track of your accounting.

        Whatever you suggest, the teams will say it’s impossible.

        Teams cheat on the technical regulations too. So what, we just abandon the technical regulations because it’s hard to monitor them? Of course not.

        These objections are simply irrelevant. Even if the teams do manage to sneak in some expenses under the radar. It would still be tons better than the absurd budget differences we have now. Just like the mess we would have without technical regulations would be a lot worse than having a team break (or bend) these rules now an then.

        Even between Red Bull and teams like McLaren and Mercedes there is already a huge budget difference. It’s just absurd.

        1. @patrickl

          try telling to the tax collectors that you cannot keep track of your accounting.

          Would that be the tax collectors that are unable to make multimillion pound companies pay their fair share of taxes because the complexities of modern multinational companies finances are impossible to make sense of ?

          If you think the FIA would be able to do a better job of regulating the finances of Fiat, Mercedes et al than the governments of Europe, USA & Japan then I’ve got some magic beans you could buy.

          A budget cap would cost millions to enforce and would provide zero guarantees that the big teams wouldn’t be able cook the books.
          Just think how many inspectors would need to be sent to Maranello to ensure none of the employees of the factory weren’t working on something for F1.

          The problem isn’t that the big teams spend too much, BAR & Toyota proved that just spending lots isn’t a guarantee of success, the problem is that the small teams don’t earn enough.
          Why waste vast amounts of money trying to enforce an unenforceable rule when you could just give that money (plus a fairer share of revenue) to the smaller teams ?

          1. Just think how many inspectors would need to be sent to Maranello to ensure none of the employees of the factory weren’t working on something for F1.

            Not only that, but where do you draw the line? Let’s take Mercedes: They develop a new fuel saving strategy for their road cars. The F1 department then come along and incorporate the ideas from that into their F1 PU. How much of that development work gets assigned to the F1 team? Just the work from the F1 dept? All of it? Part of it? How do you figure out if they developed it mainly for F1?

            There are not self contained entities. The big teams, especially, are part of huge multinational corporations. Just as they shift profits around the world to reduce their tax burden, the same could (and would) be done with F1 budgets.

          2. They pay whatever they are owed.

            You seem to have a grave misunderstanding between enforcing the rules and the fact that you don’t seem to like the rules.

            And also the old tired dead horse about a few failures who spend too much and didn’t win. The fact is though that the champs have been from the team paying the most in at least 85% of the championships over the last 35 years. Williams, then McLaren, Williams again, Ferrari and lastly Red Bull were outspending the competition by huge amounts and were able to dominate the sport while they had their massive budget advantages.

            Of course there are a few exceptions like Benetton, Brawn, Renault, Mercedes and on the failing side Toyota and Ferrari, but that’s like saying women are stronger than men because you know one strong female who could beat most guys.

      10. It’s almost impossible to police a budget in a sport like F1

        1. Answer me this. If big teams are so impossible to police and will get around it and that won’t be good for the small guys etc, then why are the big teams mostly against it while the small guys want it?

    2. SHOCKER! They’re “unlikely” to do anything good for the sport…

      1. HOW is 18 inches wheels going to change ANYTHING for us viewers except maybe, for some, better looking cars?

        If anything it’ll produce higher costs, with all the major suspension and aero work involved, thus making life even more difficult to some teams.

        I just don’t get it. 13 inches wheels might look odd, but appart from allowing to fit bigger brakes, I doubt teams want to move to a bigger wheel size.

        It won’t make a no difference at all to racing. If ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

        It works the same way for me when they shout to the media: “We want 1000 hp!”. What’s that going to change for my experience as viewer? 850, 900, 950, 1000… it’s virtually the same. On the other hand, trimming downforce,. keeping the run offs as they are, without tarmac, getting rid of DRS, etc… maybe would produce a healthy change.

        1. The higher costs are only a one-time thing though @fer-no65. And how much extra cost, in the budgets? They already spend millions on design. And it’s a chance for poor but clever teams to catch up a bit.

          The car will look a LOT better, have more grip and be even more agile, and it’s an elegant way of making the cars faster. The tyres will be lighter for flying all over the world.

          I think the current tyres are a bit ridiculous on what’s supposed to be the leading edge in automotive engineering. We’ve got used to them, but they are weird, really.

          1. The tyres will be heavier and have less grip, which will make the cars slower. I think the main reason they shouldn’t switch is the extra initial cost and the fact the cars will be slower as a result. The cars look absolutely fine, in fact I think fat rear tyres (like they will introduce in 2017) look far better on smaller rims than larger rims.

            1. @williamstuart

              The tyres will be heavier and have less grip, which will make the cars slower.

              Not true, Michelin have been testing 18″ tyres on World series by Renault cars & found that 18″ tyres were faster.
              http://www.worldseriesbyrenault.com/Renault-Sport-Technologies-and-Michelin-evaluating-17-and-18-inch-tyres.html

              Right now with the 13″ rims most of the travel in the suspension actually comes from the tyre deflection because of the size of the sidewall. As such the suspension setup doesn’t have much travel with much stiffer setups with more emphasis put on tyre pressure to control vertical travel.
              Since tyre pressure isn’t always consistent & can change based on temperature, It can be a hard thing to get right as it can be a changing target over a stint.

              Larger rims & lower profile tyres mean less deflection in the tyre & a more consistent performance profile which will shift more focus onto the suspension to control the vertical movement/roll & that will help teams get more consistent performance because they have more control over the settings.

              Another benefit of the larger tyres is that they build temperature faster & controlling tyre pressures is apparently easier which would open the door to banning tyre warmers.

            2. Larger wheels are not slower in fact more likely to be faster. Grip in a straight line is lost but they tyre will not deform as much under lateral load so corner speeds are increased. If this were not true high performance road cars would run small wheels.

          2. @lockup a one time cost increase is also a worry. Specially in these days. It’ll be a very huge cost, it’s a total redesign and redevelopment of everything, since the tyres is the most important thing in the car and the current 13 inches help a lot in terms of suspension and dampening. The tall tyrewall is basically another spring, the new tyres would be a lot harder for the ride.

            I think that the fact this tyres are 13 inches doesn’t mean they are not top tecnhnology. The bigger tyres would be exactly the same thing in terms of technology, but bigger.

            It’s like creating another F1 car, just like what we have today, but longer. Is it not “leading edge”? it’s the same!

            1. Yeah true I know the teams aren’t keen to spend the money @fer-no65, still it’s only doubling the suspension movement so it shouldn’t kill them. It’s a nice engineering challenge. The suspension will actually be simpler with not having to work with the a huge inflated sidewall.

              Which is a spring, I agree, but its damping is partial, that’s why we see them bouncing about all over the place, and as mark p says above, a low-profile tyre keeps the contact patch more consistent and in line with the wheel. A big magnesium wheel is lighter than a big tyre, meaning less unsprung weight.

              Engineering-wise high-profile tyres are so trailing edge they’re a dinosaur :) Sooner or later they’re going to have to bite the bullet IMO.

            2. @lockup

              A big magnesium wheel is lighter than a big tyre, meaning less unsprung weight.

              4.5Kgs heavier per wheel = much more unsprung weight. The tyre will have to be a completely different and stiffer construction which increases the overall weight when added to the increase in wheel weight.

            3. Okay @asanator @fer-no65 now I look it up I see 18″ GP2 wheels are 4.5kg heavier. I’m surprised.

            4. @lockup remember a bigger wheel slowers acceleration, unless you also change the gear ratios. You’re gearing it up by fitting bigger wheels.

              Also, the bouncing around would still happen but it’d have to be taken by the suspension,

              It’s really not needed at all. There are too many reasons why this would only improve the esthetics of the cars, not the performance.

              As you say, 4,5 kgs per tyre. 18 kilos in total, just for tyres. Major changes to suspension, gearboxes, aerodynamics. Better looking cars, maybe (for some, I’m not one of them). Where’s the benefit?

            5. I guess it’s just as well we’re not on the Strategy Group @fer-no65 :) For me it’s a much better engineering solution. Suspension movement can be properly damped, unlike tyre sidewalls. The rolling radius would be the same so gearing wouldn’t change. There’d be all the benefits road cars and Formula E get from low profile tyres.

          3. I think you may find that whilst a tyre company says the bigger dia tyres are “faster” they may be overlooking the fact that with the resulting higher wheel torque (leverage), braking will be further compromised, and it’s already a marginal area..

        2. every other form of motorsports on this planet has moved into larger wheel sizes.

          isn’t F1 the “testing” grounds for new technology? so how does 13 inch wheels help that?

          the response and agility gained will be astronomical, not to mention the looks.

          teams have multi million dollar budgets, I dont see how this will effect it in anyway, besides, its an initial cost thing to begin with, wont be a factor in later years.

          1. Bigger wheels mean slower acceleration so I don’t see how agility is improved. They are also far heavier.

            Honestly. There’s absolutely no point. F1 cars are small cars, they don’t need DTM/WEC like wheels.

            1. Even if wheels increase they do no effect final gearing as the tyre plus wheel is still the same just with 18 inch wheels more of the tyre wheel combination is taken up by the wheel.

              Bigger wheels can hurt straight line acceleration as tyre does not squash into the ground as much but it makes it back and more in the corners where it does not deform as much meaning it is easier to keep a greater tyre contact patch in the corners.

            2. @fer-no65, in the case of the WEC, there is a different major incentive for running larger diameter wheels – if they run a larger diameter wheel, that enables them to use larger brake disks (the ACO permits teams to use brake disks up to 15 inches in diameter).

              However, at the same time the ACO also imposes restrictions on the maximum size of the wheel and tyre assembly (28 inches maximum diameter), placing a hard limit on the size of the tyres.
              If you look at the way that the regulations are structured, they are set up in such a way as to give the teams a clear incentive to use relatively large diameter low profile tyres, so it is not surprising that teams have gone that way.

              As for DTM teams, they don’t actually have any choice in the matter – the regulations dictate that teams must use 18 inch low profile tyres supplied exclusively by the nominated supplier.

    3. This is shaping up to be an interesting weekend… The Merc’s are typically critical on brakes, no more so than at Canada. Coupled with a potential gain in Ferrari power, the Merc’s might be forced to maximize their aero at the expense of their brakes to keep a pace advantage over Ferrari.

      1. @clustr1 I can’t share your optimism, unlike last season the Mercs are pretty well rounded, they are not going to have an Hungaroring again. As of now their mechanical woes shortlist got shorter and Nico and Lewis are further apart. Merc might’ve lost a little bit of their lead on the PU side but I’m sure that this race is bound to be dominated by Mercedes powered cars, especially after Merc pledge to give an upgrade to the Lotus team.

        1. @peartree Well the premise is there though. It seems Mercedes Achilles heel this season is brake considering they told to manage them in Monaco and it already cost them 1-2 in Bahrain. Also last year at Canada both cars have brake failure which makes another 1-2 into 2nd place and DNF.

          That being said, W06 is better than W05 and probably there won’t be any brake related drama in the race, especially since probably they’ll go into a safer setup because last year problems. But, if they do have brake related problems, it won’t surprise anyone.

          1. If I remember rightly though their brake failure was caused by a recovery failure that added alot of stress to the tiny rear brakes, Not really the same issue as they suffered in Bahrain.

            Brakes will be a worry for Mercedes, especially in Canada but then again Ferrari aren’t without their worries either, I’m sure it was Arrivabene that said if Ferrari didn’t fix it’s traction problem they would be facing a problem in Canada, strange he didnt mention the problem for Monaco but he was certainly concerned about Canada.

        2. @peartree – I don’t think Merc can give an upgrade to Lotus without giving it to all teams, unless it is a software upgrade. The manufacturers have to supply the same engine hardware to all teams (Manor aside).

    4. I believe the real reason F1 is in such a mess right now is the one reason for nearly all of F1’s internal problems since the late 1970’s: F1, like any other sport, simply cannot be run by multiple parties completely separate of each other. The FIA, I believe, simply has to sell the rights it owns to F1 and relinquish all of its rights to make rules for F1. Every single aspect of F1 has to be governed by one party in a system of checks and balances. CVC and Bernie also have to go, but not F1 Management and all of its subsidiaries.

      1. pxcmerc (@)
        2nd June 2015, 4:35

        ‘cannot be run by multiple parties’ … ‘completely separate of each other’

        that argument sounds patently false, on top of being completely naive and ignorant of how the world really works. People cooperate, if anything the interests in F1 need to be further diversified, the FIA’s tight restrictions on anything pretty makes change an obsolete concept.

        1. pxcmerc (@)
          2nd June 2015, 4:36

          *pretty much makes change …

        2. I didn’t mean to say “completely seperate of each other”, I meant to say “too seperate, in the sense that both sides are far too equal in how much power they both have”. The FIA simply cannot be allowed to regulate Formula One anymore. Only one organization can strictly govern such an entity as Formula One. And I take offense to your comment about me “being completely naive and ignorant of how the world really works”. Keep your personal feelings about other people you don’t know to yourself, sir. You clearly didn’t read what I had written before, and I guess that response you wrote is a testament to your short attention span.

      2. Just imagine Bernie having the power to make the rules … We would have:
        1. about 25-30 race weekends of max 2 days
        2. sprint races for qualifying with a reverse grid
        3. possibly sprinklers and things like that to “spice up the show”
        4. Huge, loud, outdated fuel slurping engines. Probably the same engine, just badged, for the whole field. And not unlikely in one common chassis sold by guess who … (Either a BE or Flav company)
        5. last 3 races with more points, or he might try a NASCAR style shootout for the last few races. which would be held in Abu Dhabi, Quatar and Bahrain. I doubt we would see many races in Europe apart from Monaco too. And maybe the Brazillian one would stay on, if it pays enough.

        Yes, that would really help.

        1. @bascb
          6. Shortcuts on the track to spice up the show even more.
          7. “Attactive ladies”
          8. Medals!

          Sounds like a good list of ideas.

          1. Oh, yes, the medals, those have to be included @synapseza. And they can be handed out by Kim and Putin at the top drawer, double points finales in North Korea, Moscow and Krimea as @coldfly rightly notes.

            1. I think I have failed here.

            2. @bascb
              And finally, no social media.

        2. ColdFly F1 (@)
          2nd June 2015, 8:57

          Standard cars provided by CVCautomotive!
          Teams to pay for BabinoBroadcasting TV coverage!
          2hr red carpet show on the starting grid!
          USSR GP in the Crimea!
          Fans to pay for everything!

      3. But I believe Mad Max justified selling Bernie the rights to all the money by citing the EU monopoly rules.

    5. Max Mosley is back again with his ridiculous comments. Fact is Mosley was in charge when some drivers were being paid even more than they are paid now. He was also a dictatator then when 3 teams were swindled into entering F1 based on cost restrictions that never happened.
      Why should he be worried about salaries, the problem is the regulation governing the cars.

      1. Max has always tried to change F1 into something is hasn’t been and never will be.

        It’s always fun when millionaires start preaching about how rich people should spend their money. Still living in Monaco Max?

    6. “Jenson Button and Fernando Alonso will have use of an upgraded Honda Formula 1 engine at the Canadian Grand Prix, after the Japanese manufacturer confirmed it will be introducing a performance step this weekend.”

      I doubt they’ll finish the race then!

      1. Double DNF is definitely on the cards, but more importantly is how close they get to Q3.

        I’d like to believe that on a power hungry circuit such as this, they would be just outside the top 10 , maybe P11 to P13, but I have a feeling that they are going to be the slowest team after Manor this weekend. If I had to predict, I’d say P17 and P18 for Jenson and Fernando

        1. So much optimism from you two.. I say both at least one McLaren in the points!

    7. I think we have a lot to look forward to this race weekend.

      Ferrari’s increase in PU performance will be something to look forward to. If they can get closer to Mercedes this weekend, we should have an interesting battle for the top 4 spots.

      Looking forward to seeing what Honda can do as well with their use of tokens. I think this is a make or break weekend for the atmosphere within the Mclaren garage. If there are more technical problems with very little to show for in terms of performance, then we will see a lot of disharmony in the Mclaren garage.

      Also looking forward to unpredictable weather that Canada always brings. Friday is supposed to be wet, but Saturday dry and Sunny and Sunday overcast. So let’s hope this catches a few teams out and throws up some surprises

      1. I don’t think it will be a make or break weekend for the McLaren Honda, but it could be a make or break weekend for the MP4-30. This could be the weekend they decide to devote far more time and effort into the 31 than the 30, seems to me that they might just use the car as a testing mule for next seasons chassis testing major features etc. However the weekend was never going to be an easy one for that car, it would be down on power if it was ran at 100% and its being detuned so they could never fight in the speed traps.

        1. This could be the weekend they decide to devote far more time and effort into the 31 than the 30

          Next year’s car is just an evolution of this year’s car. So they don’t have a choice just to dump this chassis and focus on next year’s chassis. They would also be silly do introduce a new chassis for 2016, just for a year before a massive regulation change

      2. They may have used some tokens and not use the new PU this weekend. There are some publications (autosport, Gazetta, etc) saying Ferrari won’t use the new PU until Hungary. But the new software and fuel will be introduced.

    8. It must annoy Max Mosley tremendously to see a single driver sign a contract worth more than what he sold the commercial rights to F1 for!

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        2nd June 2015, 8:39

        +1 If only this became a trending tweet.

    9. Great article on why budget cap doesn’t work in F1
      thejudge13.com/2015/05/15/f1-budget-cap-how-and-why/

    10. Large or small rims? I really don’t care about it. It’s something that only affects at the car’s look. And I’m not sure that larger rims makes F1 cars more beatiful.

      By the way, I think there are A LOT of more important aspects of modern F1 to change.

    11. Michael Brown
      2nd June 2015, 14:51

      F1 unlikely to make beneficial changes to the sport.

    12. Apex Assassin
      2nd June 2015, 18:01

      1. Pirelli are PROVEN liars.
      2. With all the focus on road car technology why use 13″ wheels?
      3. Renault have already given up. Just look at their engine and lack of development.
      4. Max Mosely forfeited his rights to discuss F1 when he created this terrible current incarnation of what was once the pinnacle of motorsport.

      1. 1. Pirelli are PROVEN liars.

        I wouldn’t go that far.

        However I have been told by a few people around F1 that Pirelli have not always been 100% honest when talking about why the tyres act the way they do sometimes.

    13. I think the tyres size should be between 15 or 16 inches.
      These size will fit right in for the car. 18 inches is a bit too much. It will make the car ugly.

    14. Michael Brown
      2nd June 2015, 20:43

      F1 doesn’t want to change.

      The teams just want to build the same cars to the same regulations year after year, crying about costs every time a change is proposed. If the FIA had some spine, they’d do something, rather than be bossed around by the teams.

      Even if it’s a change that could bring costs down, the teams shoot it down. “It will cost us money to build it that way. Our five years’ experience of stupidly complex front wings will be useless!”

    15. I know that refueling has been discussed to death the past few weeks but just wanted to throw this new bit of info out.

      The person who proposed it in the strategy group was CVC chairman Donald MacKenzie & the only support he got was from the new Ferrari boss Sergio Marchionne. That according to this BBC article-
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32916563

      I bring that up because that pretty much mirrors what happened back in 1993 where refueling was proposed by Bernie with only Ferrari been in support of it.
      Back in 1993 despite opposition from everyone apart from them it was attached to the new regulations banning driver aids for 1994 at pretty much the last second without much proper discussion without every other team bar Ferrari firmly in opposition & as I said 2 weeks ago those other teams then spent the next few years arguing to get it banned again & it was also many of those same people who ended up voting through the ban in mid-2009 as part of FOTA (With Ferrari in agreement I believe).

    16. Awesome news! A rim that big simply doesn’t fit this type of car. 15” is the maximum size acceptable in my opinion.

    17. Looking forward to seeing what Honda can do as well with their use of tokens. I think this is a make or break weekend for the atmosphere within the Mclaren garage. If there are more technical problems with very little to show for in terms of performance, then we will see a lot of disharmony in the Mclaren garage.

    Comments are closed.