Michael Schumacher, Ferrari, Nurburgring, 2015

Hamilton ‘not aiming for Schumacher’s records’

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Michael Schumacher, Ferrari, Nurburgring, 2015In the round-up: Lewis Hamilton says it has never been a goal of his to match Michael Schumacher’s level of success in F1.

Become an F1 Fanatic Supporter

F1 Fanatic is run thanks in part to the generous support of its readers. By contributing £1 per month or £12 per year you can help cover the costs of creating, hosting and developing F1 Fanatic today and in the future.

Become an F1 Fanatic Supporter today and browse the site ad-free. Sign up or find out more via the links below:

Links

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

Lewis Hamilton: 'Only next title is important not Michael Schumacher's record' (The Independent)

"I’ve never set after that Schumacher goal, I always wanted to emulate Ayrton. Winning one was special. Now I’m pushing for a third and that’s the special one as that is what Ayrton had and that’s what mattered to me most when I was a kid."

Ricciardo understands Mateschitz's frustration (Reuters)

"Obviously we were optimistic we’d close the gap a lot this year but nearly halfway through the season we’re more or less in the same position. I think this is where the comments and frustration came from."

Mateschitz's comments no empty threat - Horner (Motorsport)

"We need to find a solution. It's in F1's interest for Red Bull to be in the sport."

Female F1 racer a certainty, says Toto Wolff (City AM)

"Somebody will do it. Can you imagine the media exposure somebody would get from it? Every single camera would be pointing at the girl in the car."

Massa cautions that F1 was 'worse' when Senna was winning (Adam Cooper's F1 Blog)

"I was watching most of the races he did, it was a lot worse than how it is now. The difference in the qualifying was maybe 1.5 seconds to the third (place), they were lapping the third every race."

Mercedes taking Ferrari threat 'very seriously' - Lewis Hamilton (ESPN)

"We always take it very seriously but the team is probably more focused on it than I am."

Pirelli open to any of F1's future tyre plans after bid from Michelin (Sky)

"We can only reply to the rules and we have said we will supply what they want. If you want to do 20-inch we’ll do 20-inch. If you want to do tyres to last the whole race we’ll do that. Tell us what you want and we’ll do it."

Upgraded Williams 'better and better' (Autosport)

"The second row is definitely possible, we are going for it. The top three is the target for qualifying."

Fernando Alonso, McLaren, Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, 2015

Fernando Alonso Q&A: We want to leave here on Sunday with some answers (F1)

"There might be just one little number wrong in the software, which prevents the car from getting into the first gear and you end up sitting in the garage until you discover this mistake."

Button may run short nose, but expects penalties (Crash)

"Jenson Button says it is likely he will be joining Fernando Alonso in taking more penalties for the Austrian Grand Prix, but says there is a chance he will get to run McLaren-Honda's new short nose design regardless. "

NASCAR at mid-season (Motorsport magazine)

"Defending champion Harvick leads everyone at mid-season with almost $5 million in prize money while so far this year no fewer than 38 drivers have earned $1 million or more. This represents a very different and much more equitable pay-out down through the field than Formula 1 and is an essential component in NASCAR’s overall good health."

Lewis Hamilton to go from F1 to No1 says Tinie Tempah (Daily Star)

"It doesn’t even sound like Lewis Hamilton. It’s really, really good. It’s interesting. I’m curious to see how people will react to it."

Tweets

Comment of the day

With this kind of aptitude for getting around the F1 rules it’s surely only a matter of time before Jelle van der Meer gets a place on the pit wall:

Would it not be smarter for Red Bull and McLaren to put a fifth engine in for first practice, a sixth engine in for second practice, a seventh engine in for third practice, a eighth in qualifying and a ninth for the race?

That way they get like 250 grid place penalties – during the race have a 300 second stop and go penalty and will be last in the race.

However after they have five barely-used engines for the rest of the season, rather sacrifice one race than the remainder of the season.
Jelle van der Meer

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Julie, M744All and Erivaldo Moreira!

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

Jochen Rindt scored the first of 20 pole positions for Lotus’s ground-breaking 72 in qualifying for the Dutch Grand Prix 45 years ago today.

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

  • 55 comments on “Hamilton ‘not aiming for Schumacher’s records’”

    1. Ha ha, that COTD is brilliant.
      Question: is there anything in the rules to stop that?

      Almost sounds like a reasonable strategy for a Redbull or a McLaren, except the excess engines would soon become useless and outdated, since they would want to introduce updates.

      1. I liked it too, I wonder if they’d have enough new engines built in time to try that in an upcoming race ?

        1. Most certainly not.

      2. I get the feeling there must be something in the rules to make the team carry a penalty for a second engine in the next race?

      3. But then they are a stuck with those engines or on to a tenth for upgrades lol

      4. I laughed so hard, it was incredible. Thank you Jelle van der Meer, that was sensational.

        1. We’re talking about RB and McLaren here

        2. The cost is irrelevant and that’s the problem with the current rules and cost cutting. As @paeschli states RB and Mclaren have more money than talent atm and would even throw in the kitchen sink to be competitive. Financial penalties won’t work for the smaller teams and grid penalties don’t work for the fans or the sport. Fail F1

    2. The COTD is funny but….

      Why would you want to take more of the same unreliable, under-powered engines now? If the engines were frozen, sure. Not to mention the cost.

    3. It’s in F1’s interest for Red Bull to be in the sport.

      Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff….

      1. I agree with you, RBR and TR should leave, after all we have a healthy grid and lots of people fighting to get into F1…The sooner they made their minds the better.

        1. RBR and TR existed for years before they were bought by Red Bull, it’s not unreasonable to think there’d be some interest in buying them if they were put up for sale.
          There may not be many people wanting to do a Haas and establish a new team, or buy out the likes of HRT, but RBR & TR are established teams with a lot of good people and resources (especially RBR).

          1. Omar R (@omarr-pepper)
            20th June 2015, 2:33

            @beneboy but it takes time, so there could be a season or 2 with 2 teams less. Also, new teams may not feel attrackted to enter after watching Renault and Honda’s engines debacle, and the current rules only allow one engine manufacturer to provide 4 teams.

      2. Omar R (@omarr-pepper)
        20th June 2015, 1:58

        @fer-no65 @celeste I hope you both are being ironic. Hate them or love them, but losing 2 teams in a year would be a major downturn for the sport and for fans in general. And Red Bull, as recent champions, should “morally” stay as good losers. This is business though, and if they go it will affect F1 as a business.

        1. @omarr-pepper I’m not being ironic.

          As @beneboy says, Red Bull bought the teams. F1 doesn’t NEED Red Bull, they might need Ferrari, but not Red Bull.

          Red Bull can go and F1 will still exist. Yes, having 2 teams less would be quite a punch in the stomach, but teams come and go. F1 survived after BMW, Toyota and Honda left, major car manufacturers, and it can easily survive if Red Bull decides to quit, which it WILL happen, sooner or later, because F1 or motorsports isn’t anything more than just a marketing tool, and if they feel it’s no longer worthy for them, they can and will pull the plug.

          1. marketing tool for them*

            1. @fer-no65 Your point is valid. The issue is, who in their right mind would invest in F1 in it’s current state?

            2. @funkyf1 no idea, but Red Bull doesn’t seem that interested in keeping the money flow either.

        2. @omarr-pepper I´m being ironic, but I´m willing to let them go, because I´m gonna love reading the comments of people telling them to leave complain about how small is the grid, how there is a need for more middle of the grid teams, how teams only have pay drivers and young talented drivers don´t have where to go… etc.

      3. Flat-out denying that it’s in F1’s interest for RBR to stay around is not well thought out.

        Red Bull are among very few sponsor owned teams to have achieved notable success throughout F1’s history. In a time when sponsors are severely lacking in Formula 1, for a sponsor who has invested as much as Red Bull has to have to pull out, especially at their own cost, sets a dire precedent for the value of investing in the sport.

        Many people have complained about the price of the events, the quality of the circuits and availability of coverage being behind pay walls. The smaller teams which make up the majority of the field complain about cost of engines and developments, and in turn have to rely on pay or cheap but experienced and slowing drivers which lowers the quality of the field.

        Without sponsors bringing money in to F1 these situations will only get worse which is where I believe the crux of the argument lies. Red Bull has been and could continue to be a poster child for proving the worth of investing in the sport. Given time it’s not unlikely to imagine another company wanting to prove their management and political prowess and therefore providing F1 with another team that doesn’t need to rely on prize money or skimp on development costs, not only of cars but drivers also.

        Since entering the sport Red Bull have constantly improved, or at least had the opportunity to. Even when they were at the back of the midfield there were glimmers of progress and hope. Yet now they are faced with absolutely no avenue for development beyond simply hoping a third party in the form of the engine manufacturer can improve their engine.

        We need more sponsors in F1 not less, and if the message is “no matter how much you invest, the team will be reliant on 3rd parties for success” then it really isn’t a very enticing opportunity.

        P.S: Before people say for the thousandth time, “well McLaren aren’t complaining.” It’s a very different situation to McLaren who are not complaining about Honda as that is a technical partnership where there is opportunity to learn, grow and implement elsewhere. There is absolutely nothing for Red Bull as a non car manufacturing sponsor to learn from Renault.

        1. @skipgamer Read above. That’s my point, even if I understand (and mostly agree with) yours.

          1. F1 survived after BMW, Toyota and Honda left, major car manufacturers, and it can easily survive if Red Bull decides to quit.

            I agree with this point actually, I think F1 will survive too. But will it be better off without them? I don’t think so personally.

          2. @skipgamer neither better nor worse. Different. And it will happen anyway.

        2. Would just like to correct something as only the Sith deal in absolutes… The last sentence should begin “There is relatively little”

        3. So, cutting through all that, F1 needs Red Bull to subsidise the stupid spending levels of F1 in general?

          No, nonsense.

          F1 needs cost control, not stroppy entitled sponsors who expect the sport to bend to its will so that it can win.

          Thank you for demonstrating what F1 does not need Red Bull.

          1. Cost control won’t happen, can’t happen, and there were numerous articles on this very site as to why when the issue was in the eye of media years ago.

            It’s simply impossible to regulate spending when it happens through various shell corporations, or with manufacturers who have multi-faceted businesses that could be used for development outside of the official team.

    4. Yes (@come-on-kubica)
      20th June 2015, 0:45

      Martin Brundle irritates me so much, he’s ego has risen so much since joining sky.

      1. At first I thought he was a pretty sensible guy. Sometimes he’s still one of the most sensible guys on Sky. But yeah, he now mostly irritates me.

      2. @come-on-kubica While at times his ego does come through a bit, I thought he was attempting to be humble in that tweet. Even if you don’t think its genuine humility, it dosn’t make him egotistical.

        1. @come-on-kubica , @dragoll – I think Brundle is one of the better F1 commentators available to choose from these days. Some people might not like his tweet because it goes against the increasingly popular daily thrashing of F1 by nearly everybody. I don’t see it as an ego thing at all, more a difference of opinion.

          1. @bullmello I may also be ‘against the tide’ as he says . I somehow prefer DC to Brundle for commentary. I love his grid walks and insights though.Everyone has an ego. I think it’s okay.

            1. @hamilfan – Everyone has an ego. I think it’s okay.

              Granted, it does take a certain confidence level to be an F1 driver or be a TV personality.

            2. I somehow prefer DC to Brundle for commentary.

              Both together in 2011 was great, and both individually seem far more enjoyable than any commentator without a drivers-background, as those always seem to cater to a far more casual audience… and always talk loudest and fastest at exactly those moments when the pictures are able to stand for themselves and I just want the commentary to be silent.

            3. @crammond – spot on. they should learn from richie benaud: if you can’t add anything to what’s going on, don’t say anything.

        2. Yes (@come-on-kubica)
          20th June 2015, 10:38

          It’s not only his tweets, it’s everything else, he seemed quite laidback on the BBC.

    5. Speaking of team radio & whats allowed & whats not, Going back to Montreal I noticed a radio call to Lewis telling him Nico was safe on fuel…. Yet when Nico asked how Lewis was on fuel he was told they couldn’t tell him.

      Going by the wording of the restrictions i’m fairly sure the message informing Lewis what Nico was doing with fuel was against the rules & the fact it was ignored by the officials shows how idiotic these radio restrictions really are, there un-policeable!

      there was even coded stuff going out back at monaco practice.

      1. Today Hamilton asked about his line through a corner during qualifying while out on the track. Surely they can’t tell him that?

    6. Felipe may be right about the number of cars being lapped by the race leader(s) back in the days of Senna (though I’d like to see the stats if anyone has them). The big difference is that back then, with the exception of 1988 when Prost and Senna won all but 1 race, in most seasons we’d have four or more drivers winning races.
      We may have only seen two or three guys fighting for the win in a race, but the following race it could be two or three different guys.

      In the 26 races we’ve had since the last big rule change Lewis & Nico have won 22, Dan got 3 last season & Seb has got one this season.

      I think it’s difficult to make claims about any era being the best as all of them have their good and bad aspects, and it’s very easy to get all misty eyed about the era of my childhood heros, but, honestly, I think Felipe is on to a loser if he wants us to believe that what we’re watching now is better than what we got to watch most seasons between 84-94.
      Even in 88 when Senna and Prost dominated we were getting to watch 2 of the greatest drivers fighting using the same equipment. I’m not a big fan of Lewis, but I’d still put him in that class of driver, I don’t think I could say the same for Nico.

      1. Given that only Mercedes and Ferrari developed their chassis and their PU in tandem, all the other teams didn’t have this advantage, we can only blame Ferrari who screwed up really bad last year on both ends.

        Now they’re just making the progress to the point they should start with last year. And then there will be two top teams fighting for wins as is the rule of the vast majority of seasons to date.

        1. Have you been watching F1 before regulation changes? It was far from McLaren vs Ferrari.

          1. I didn’t specify teams. But most of the time there were 2 top teams fighting for wins, yes.

    7. @beneboy

      Felipe may be right about the number of cars being lapped by the race leader(s) back in the days of Senna (though I’d like to see the stats if anyone has them).

      StatsF1 has a lot great stats including the ones that would tell the rest of this story.
      http://www.statsf1.com

      I think there probably were a lot of races in that era with only 3, 4, 5 cars on the lead lap.

      You are right, every era is different with its own set of good and bad.

    8. About that Brundle tweet, yes he is one of the sensible guys on Sky but honestly I wouldn’t put him as the most sensible guy that goes to Damon Hill.

      Brundle is quite sensible too but man, talk about a guy who’s allegiances are well known. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be a fan of a driver but still. . . If Croft, Simon, Herbert can still seem to be impartial so should Brundle and Ted too. I’d rather not watch Sky though.

      1. Shirbit Reats
        20th June 2015, 8:20

        I’m sure everyone has its favorites… it’s impossible to not to have. I prefer Brundle because he doesn’t try to hide it, while Simon and Herbert often get into such fervor from behind their facade of neutrality to shill for Hamilton it’s funny to watch.

      2. @mim5 I’m sorry, but I’ve been watching (hearing?) Brundle’s commentary for years. Would you care to tell me which driver he seems to have favoritism towards? All I’ve heard is him praising midfield drivers (i.e. Hulkenberg, Perez, Verstappen, Sainz Jnr. etc.)

    9. @COTD Yeah but the 300-second penalty will be enough to cook an engine, no?

      (stil, a clever solution nonetheless)

    10. Wow, quite the well filled round-up today!

      Yeah, Horner, don’t worry we do take your boss’ comments seriously (not like Ferrari who tended to talk about quitting every 2-3 years and never did), you don’t have to speak up for Didi.

      To everyone saying the grid would be far worse for 2 teams less, just look at Mateschitz and getting rid of STR 2 years back – there were no buyers, so he never sold. What does that tell us? He is rich, and you don’t get rich and stay rich by investing a huge amount of money and then throwing it away by closing shop (like Toyota did and Honda nearly did). In other words, if he wants out, he wil look for (and find?) a buyer, meaning the teams will probably still exist in one form or the other.

      Like that perspective on Hamilton and his music. I don’t expect anything (surely he would be better than JV and his music, one would hope), but actually its pretty exciting if he gets his 3rd championship or so, does another year of seeing someone else get stronger and then just goes and do music. Then Bernie can have him do concerts at the Singaporean, Austin and Silverstone races :-)

      And yeah, seems NASCAR is hitting some of the same hurdles as F1 with declining interest. Now off to read about McLaren, Alonso and Button :-)

      1. Oh, my thoughts on that Brundle tweet. I like it, its good that he says so. But lets not forget that actually Brundle was the one on the sky broadcast who started the downtalking of F1.
        So, yes, fine that he now seems to realise the danger in that and has found that actually F1 is not all that bad. But he should show more enthusiasm for it on live as well then, pointing out the interesting things to be heard, seen, expected (DC does a good job of that mostly on the BBC) instead of focussing on DRS, fuel saving, tyres not lasting etc.

      2. As an aside, whilst the Motorsport article mentions that the organisers spread out payments more widely, what it fails to mention is that the wealth disparity between teams is still relatively extreme and that the sport is still ultimately dominated by the wealthiest teams.

        The Stewart-Haas outfit which Harvick races with, for example, has an annual turnover of $120 million a year, and they are only the third wealthiest team in the sport (the wealthiest, Hendrick Motorsports, spends closer to $180 million a year). Go down towards the lower end of the field, and a team like Front Row Motorsports has revenues of just $15 million a year.

        1. Yes, its very important to note that Anon. And its also one of the problems NASCAR has in common with F1 and its hurting the quality of the racing as much as it hurts in F1

    11. Oh, an interesting one from twitter: Force India is looking for a student placement for the team that works on the instalment of the engine in the cars. So grab your chance!

    12. Brundle, uncharacteristically, gets it right. For those lucky enough to be working inside the bubble, F1 is fantastic! We can only dream of such an amazing lifestyle, it’d be like winning the lottery. There seems to be a marked disconnect between those who work in the circus, including journalists, to say how great it all is. But they don’t pay the price of a family holiday to attend a race, or sit at home watching Crofty and pals desperately try to inject some tension or excitement in the latest procession. Quite a few people seem to be in denial, sadly.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.