Daniel Juncadella, Jazeman Jaafar, Formula BMW, Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez, 2008

“No way” to keep Mexico’s Peraltada corner

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: The Mexican Grand Prix organisers explain why the signature Peraltada corner could not be kept in its original form.

F1 Fanatic 9 updates

Further modifications to the latest version of F1 Fanatic went live late yesterday. Among the newest changes are improved sortable tables (here’s one example and another one), improved navigation on pages, restored comment pagination for our lengthies discussions, further load time improvements and various fixes and style tweaks (including a few in the round-up).

As always thanks to those of you who helped by giving feedback and a special thanks to those of you whose support for the site funds its continued growth and development.

Tweets

Comment of the day

Nico Rosberg, Mercedes, Sochi Autodrom, 2015
Could Rosberg have done any more in Mexico?
Rosberg out-performed Hamilton in Russia until his car let him down in the race. Did he therefore deserve more than 1.5% of your Driver of the Weekend votes?

I never had Rosberg in mind for the Driver of the Weekend, not because he was bad but his exit was too early in the race for me to give proper judgement.

The difference between this race and Monaco (where Hamilton won Driver of the Weekend) is Hamilton is in the whole race so we can see what he’s done for the entire race length, but that’s not the case with Rosberg. For all we know, he could make some major mistake later like Raikkonen or maybe make some error under Hamilton pressure which could deny him Driver of the Weekend all the same.

Mind you, I’m not saying Rosberg would have ruined his race if his car hadn’t broken down, it’s just why I don’t consider him for Driver of the Weekend this race.
Sonics (@Sonicslv)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Imre Pardi!

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 most controversial F1 championship decider of all time happened on this day 25 years ago, when Ayrton Senna took Alain Prost out nine seconds after the Japanese Grand Prix started:

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

  • 129 comments on ““No way” to keep Mexico’s Peraltada corner”

    1. Maybe someone can enlighten me, but why couldn’t they put safer barrier around the edge of Peraltada and treat it as an oval corner in IndyCar/NASCAR ?

      1. Because its not just about the lack of run-off, Another problem with the corner as it is now is that its pretty narrow & pretty blind & slightly banked so if somebody was to crash there they would likely come off the wall & slide down the track with drivers behind unable to see far enough round the corner to have time to react to avoid the crashed car.

        Ovals tend to be quite open so drivers have good visibility through the corner & are able to see any cars that have crashed ahead & of course they also have spotters on-top of the grandstand to help inform them of any accidents.

        If you go back 10 odd years when Champcar raced on the circuits, They were cars designed to race on ovals & even they didn’t run through peraltada at full speed using the stadium section F1 will use & later a slow chicane to slow them down before they went through peraltada.

        Additionally the wall on both sides of peraltada isn’t a traditional concrete wall as you see on ovals, Its kind of in sections as you usually see on street circuits & I gather attaching a safer barrier safely to it would be difficult.

    2. That Porsche says “OMG M” I think it says “OMG Montoya will try the triple crown!!!”

      1. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
        21st October 2015, 9:13

        We know they have a spare seat… :D

        1. I get the impression that they might try to get an F1 driver in each year to add some marketability – Hulk wins last year, Montoya next year, Webber after that, then perhaps Alonso or Button etc.

      2. Jack (@jackisthestig)
        21st October 2015, 15:56

        As he’s got two legs sewn up it would be a shame not to try and win Le Mans. It’s amazing that the triple crown is the one motorsport record that has stood for so many years, arguably getting harder as the years have gone on. Since Graham Hill won it, Mario Andretti and Montoya are the only drivers to complete two of the three legs (I don’t count Jacques Villeneuve as he didn’t win the Monaco GP) with a Le Mans so far eluding both of them.

        If someone completes the triple crown again it will be a magnificent achievement. I hope Montoya does it and should Mark Webber win Le Mans in the near future it would be interesting to see if he makes an attempt at the Indy 500.

        It’s also worth noting that McLaren have won the Monaco GP, Indy 500 and Le Mans as a constructor.

        1. @jackisthestig Andretti was unlucky in that, the year he attempted Le Mans, he was the first prototype on the road, but McLaren won overall with the McLaren F1 GT car and he was thus second overall. That’s a neat stat on McLaren though, hadn’t realised that one before!

        2. Also hadn’t thought about Webber winning Le Mans and then doing the opposite to Montoya and one-offing Indy 500!

    3. How much money is Bernie receiving from the Red Bull company?

    4. This isn’t good.

    5. If only they could put those roads behind the Peraltada underground, then the circuit could use that corner again. If only such a project existed…

      1. Roads? Where we’re going we don’t need roads. Sorry, couldn’t resist today!

        1. Unfortunately the FIA has put lots of rules in place to prevent cars taking to the air. Maybe an aerial segment is just what F1 needs, but the flight certification might increase costs. I fully expect the drivers to be showing off their self-tying driving boots this weekend though!

          1. DRS is a good start. Also have DRS on the front wing, and then allow rotation by 180°. This should allow the cars to take off.

      2. I thought the same thing. A response like, “We absolutely tried, but there was just no way we could make that turn work. However, the only alternative was basically to bring the track into the baseball stadium and it turned out pretty good” just doesn’t sit with some fans (such as myself) of a sport where the seemingly impossible is achieved on quite a regular basis. He should have been more honest and said something along the lines of, “It didn’t make sense, financially, to invest the money into making the Peraltada comply with the regulations especially given the timeline for the project.”

        1. But that isn’t correct. Their finances have nothing to do with the practicalities of the huge public highway construction project that would be necessary.

    6. In some ways, I hope Bernie does push through V8s, so everyone but red bull can leave this silly series and start a new one… like they should have done 9 years ago (or whenever it was).

      1. FIA will block the move…. and many move that bernie will do so the rival series might end without many racing tracks available, or worst end as local series

        1. Yes they would have to ditch the FIA too @ayatoybox. That’s all good surely, they are a big part of everything that needs fixing.

          It would be hugely anti-competitive for FIA to prevent tracks hosting other governing bodies’ races.

          But Bernie is regarded as the golden goose, so I don’t see it, unfortunately.

      2. Forget it- the only manufacturer that will still be there are Ferrari and Renault. Merc and Honda will effectively withdraw- and lawsuits (particularly on Honda’s end) will come flying at Ecclestone.

        1. I know, but we are approaching a limit… one must exist. I think until Jean Todt leaves and the FIA actually take an interest in the sport again (instead of leaving it up to the commercial rights holder), we are stuck with things as they are… or Bernie needs to ‘move on’ if you know what I mean, but anyway I’m sure CVC will install a replica anyway.

          Remember though, it almost happened 10 years ago, with many circuits supporting the breakaway. It’s not completely nuts.

      3. @john-h Why is NASCAR more popular than Indycar again?

        1. @davidnotcoulthard
          I understand the point, but comparing F1 to NASCAR is not quite that simple.

          In my humble opinion, F1 should be at the edge of technology, and turbo hybrids are right there. The problem is that we are not talking about these amazing engines or showing them off. We just see the ‘end output’ which is the sound. When we saw Verstappens bodywork fall off, the thing underneath was amazing. We need to have regulations that make these things known, not be kept hidden. We need to make how these engines work explicit and give the general public a sense of F1 being at the cutting edge of motorsport… we don’t have to do that with noise.

          Just like the drivers need to be more publicly accessible, so do the cars. We could certainly learn a lot from NASCAR in this regard.

          1. One of the problems with that “cutting edge” technology we have in F1 is, that someone said it is, implemented it and now everybody runs it. It is absolutely meaningless in regards of competitiveness. All we have shown so far, is that it’s extremely complicated technology, which some of the largest manufacturers in the world are either not capable of getting to work, or is simply too expensive to give a try… And in the case of Mercedes… If you actually look what AMG is selling for the road, then the closest thing is a 4 liter twin-turbo V8, which only just recently replaced a 6.3 litre V8.

            F1 needs variety. We need the Colin Chapman approach to racing going up against whatever is ‘the new thing.’ Only then we can show off that technology. Right now it’s just a mandatory rule and not the pinnacle of development.

          1. @john-h So no….you don’t :)

      4. I like how Formula Renault 3.5 renamed itself Formula 3.5 V8, as if to subtly hint that other series do still run V8’s..

        I agree that F1 could do a lot better job of highlighting the technology that it’s been developing in the last two years.

    7. I know that folks complain all the time, and that people talk about losing interest/quitting watching F1 all the time, and few people actually stop watching, because it’s a really beautiful, historic form of motorsport. There’s little that compares to the memories I have of watching races in the very early 90’s, and when I think F1, I think of the pinnacle of motorsport, and that’s … appealing.

      But I really don’t know if I can keep watching. I can’t stand Ecclestone. His cozying up with awful, awful governments around the world, his brownnosing folks like Putin, and his absurd decrees about how awful the teams in *his own sport* are, and how they’re “beggars” and “didn’t budget properly” and whatever else, while jerking everyone around with arbitrary rule changes that aren’t sporting, or informed by safety, or common sense. It’s too much.

      It’s absurd that McLaren are running around at the back of the pack because they can’t improve an obviously-flawed-from-the-first-race engine. It’s insane that historic teams like the folks at Enstone are on the brink of bankruptcy after 1 lousy year despite a lot of really brilliant performances. It’s insane to see drivers like Maldonado comfortably find rides year after year while folks like Vandoorne and others struggle to find rides based on their successes & talent. It’s ridiculous that things like DRS and clown-shoe tires are introduced to make the sport more “watchable” when sensible aero regulations could do the same. It’s *stupid* that we’ve got teams spending hundreds of millions of dollars to eke out incremental improvements on cars that are so tightly restricted they might as well be spec racers.

      The best things in the last few years? Double diffusers. F-Ducts. Off-throttle exhaust blowing. Seeing teams eke out performance from creatively bending the rules, resulting in “lower-tier” teams making unexpected performance jumps. Instead of finding a way to make the sport accommodate creativity and innovation, they just adjust the rule book to eliminate as much of it as possible. And after a while, it just gets boring. Mercedes is dominating now because literally no one *can* catch them, because of the way the engine rules work. Is that saving money? No – it’s just causing huge spend on things that are going to have smaller effects, and Mercedes runs away with the championship. Great – they solved the problem two years ago better than anyone else. But the rules lock in their lead, and crush smaller teams in their wake. That’s not sport, to me. That’s not interesting to watch. It’s not exciting.

      I want the F1 where crazy engineering happens. Where there’s no question we’re watching the best drivers in the world in the best technology available. Maybe that’s impossible. It’s certainly impossible the way Bernie’s running the show. If I want to watch folks manage comedy tire degradation, I can watch Ken Block videos. If I want to watch folks parade around a circuit, I’ll wait ’til the 4th of July. If I want to watch creative engineering, I guess I’ll watch the WEC. But right now, F1 doesn’t have any of what I want anymore. And it’s clear from everything Bernie says, he’s not interested in providing what I’m looking for.

      1. Just add in the new stupid Pirelli tyre deal until 2019 and it’s a perfect description of what’s wrong with F1.

      2. @helava, I agree totally, while I can overlook many aspects of Bernies F1 because of my historical interest in the series there are 2 essentials that F1 must have (or I think might be regained in the near future) to keep me interested, they are,
        1; good, close, car against car racing.
        2; inventive technological solutions.
        Currently #1 is ruined mainly by the clown tyres and #2 is better than the harmonised V8 era but is but a tiny fraction of what it could be if the rules were not so proscriptive.
        In summary, a return to the antique V8s would be the last straw for me.

      3. Couldn’t agree more. Comment of the Day right here.

      4. Seppo, you would have liked 1978, when Lotus brought in their awesome ground effects 79 part-way into season. Mario (and Peterson) dominated with this brilliant machine. But then Gordon Murray brought his ingenious fan car to Anderstorp which took ground effects to a whole new level (.of course, Jim Hall had already used this approach in the Can Am). Lauda “dusted” the field, figuratively and literally, in the Brabham!

        1. I wasn’t around then (born in ’81), but I have had discussions about this.

          Wasn’t the “fan car” brought in, not to outdo the ground effect, but because ground effect was banned and they were trying to replace it? This is what I was told, but I don’t know if it’s correct.

          I seriously think they should allow proper shaped-floor ground effect back in to F1. Good, efficient downforce which is affected very little by the car in front. This would allow closer racing in itself.

        2. @gary – Yeah, I’m sure I’d have loved to see stuff like the fan car, double-chassis car, 6-wheeled car – all that stuff. I even really love the idea that Red Bull had effectively turned KERS into traction control a few years back. All that stuff is brilliant, and I want more of it, not less, as long as the safety of the drivers is maintained, and there’s still skill involved in the driving. So some limitations on stuff like traction control are sensible to me. I’d love to see a scenario where, for instance, there was no limitation on active aero. Let’s get the whole surface of the car articulated and see how they change shape over the course of a lap. I want the pinnacle of what’s possible. I want crazy, insane stuff no one has seen anywhere else. I want to be *surprised* at the beginning of the season when the cars are revealed, and not just by how f’ing ugly they are (step noses, dong noses, etc.) because they need to meet some incredibly poorly conceived regulations.

      5. +1 This says it all, thanks!

      6. @helava But this comes as a younger fan, but all races pre 2010 are extremely boring for me. The 90s and 80s cars look hideous to me (I honesly prefer 2012 and 2014 cars). I think the case here is that people look to “their” era as the best. I don’t mind DRS, Pirellis etc. I don’t mean to offend anybody, but what really infuriates me is the 80s and 90s people bashing F1, when they enjoyed watching 2 overtakes per race and Trulli trains.

        1. @mashiat
          You must remember TV coverage wasn’t that good in 80s or 90s and we haven’t being shown as much action as we used to these days so the perception can be changed before of this. There were some good races in the refuelling era as well but yes, the amount of action was greater after introducing Pirelli and DRS. Not everyone likes them and in my opinion they went too far. But in 2011 and 2012 tyres were very good IMO. Both Alonso and Webber praised them back then.

        2. @mashiat
          You may want to brush up on your history, 2 overtakes and Trulli trains was from 95 and into the 2000’s, the 80’s and early 90’s were full of overtaking and on track action.
          http://cliptheapex.com/overtaking/
          And back in the 80’s overtakes were genuine moves, not DRS/tyre induced highway passes, and as such were far more entertaining than most passes we see these days.

        3. @mashiat – I think everyone brings their own context to F1, when they start, etc. But oh, man – if you don’t think the Mclaren MP4/6 is the most beautiful racecar ever made, you’re just objectively wrong. ;)

          1. Jordan 191- subjectively right ;)

      7. @helava

        Absolutely BANG ON! Pretty much sums up my feelings. I really enjoyed reading your post.

        F1, from the outside, appears to be in a total mess and unwilling/unable to change.

        I’m not ‘getting it’ anymore. It’s expensive to follow, too. What is the point, exactly? Bernie can take F1 to circuits that can afford to pay the outrageous fees, where everyone will watch from home, safely in front of their tele. Perhaps it’s the ultimate employment of circuit safety. Anyway… I digress. Well done, sir!

        OT – I bought some skin cream earlier, and the first words on the back of the label read “weren’t we promised hover boards by now”… on today, of all days… true story!

      8. @helava, it has to be said that the sport has never had a particularly clean relationship with governments – long before Bernie became involved, the sport was happy to consort with military dictatorships in Spain, Portugal, Argentina and Brazil and happily put up with the apartheid regime in South Africa, although the nature of many of those governments tends to be glossed over when speaking about past races.

        1. Times have changed. So must F1.

          If it does not, it risks alienating the very people it’s trying to attract.

          1. Agreed with @andybantam on this. Doing awful crap in the past is forgivable if you evolve as your understanding evolves. But Ecclestone has said, in so many words, that it’s not just that this is a questionable morally grey situation and that sport is independent of government blah blah blah, he’s gone on the record saying glowing things about Putin and the Bahrainis, and it’s clear that those governments *are* using F1 explicitly as a flag of political legitimacy.

            And that means that *my* viewership of F1 is tied to that in an *explicit* way, not just an implicit one. And I don’t like that. Watching racing isn’t *worth* that to me, and while it’s really weird to say it, watching *bad* racing isn’t worth that to me even more. If it were really sport, and the guy running the show wasn’t going around vouching for terrible governments, and the on-track engineering and driving competition was the apex of what’s possible, then okay, there’s a discussion to be had about it.

            But it’s not a sport anymore. DRS and ridiculous tires and absurd development restrictions and boring tracks… Eh. And then you’ve got Ecclestone running around like a court jester for dictators and tyrants, doing the little commercial dance these people want to prop up their tyranny, and it’s clear that it’s a commercial venture and little else, and it’s just gotten… icky. Icky in a way that we’re all conscious of, because we have better access to information now than we ever have. The propaganda is transparently propaganda. And the combination of that, and the degradation of the sport – I just don’t feel like being part of it, and propping up Ecclestone’s little empire anymore. It’s tiring. It’s depressing. It’s sad. I miss the days where I could admire heroes – both drivers and engineers. I miss the days when the competition was real. Maybe it’s always been like this, but I don’t think so. And even if it’s just in my mind, maybe that’s all that matters anyway.

            1. Here’s maybe a different way of restating my problem.

              I don’t know what F1 stands for anymore.

              Time was you could say it was the technological and athletic apex of racing. The best drivers. The best technology. But that’s not the case anymore, and it’s plain as day to anyone who’s looking.

              How can you describe modern F1 in one sentence?

              Watch as some of the world’s best drivers compete against other drivers who bring $ to teams as they manage their tires and coast to save fuel, passing in designated zones via active aero triggered by arbitrary sensors at specific track locations! (Or in the pits.)

              If I think about what is absolutely *vital* to races these days, it’s tires. It’s fuel management. It’s an inability to actually make passing stick because of the dirty air behind cars. It’s the struggle for talented drivers to find seats because so many teams are struggling to financially survive. Those are the things that dominate F1 these days, and it’s basically impossible to be a fan of F1 without understanding those things.

              Then go back and watch the footage of Senna’s laps of Monaco, and wonder how this all happened.

            2. Haha! Well said, that man!

              The worrying thing for me is that the majority of opinion I’ve read is that “this is just the way it is, the way it’s always been and the way it will always be, in every area of industry, so denying yourself F1 is just being hypocritical” train of thought.

              What utter tosh.

              I realise that globalisation has surreptitiously tested the morals of all of us, but access to information on modern day social networking means that, for the first time in history, we, as consumers, can make our own informed choice.

              Choice made!

              If your company behaves in a way I see as massively immoral or highly disagreeable, I won’t give you any of my money – even if that means doing without.

      9. “when I think F1, I think of the pinnacle of motorsport, and that’s … appealing.”
        and ”
        “I want the F1 where crazy engineering happens. Where there’s no question we’re watching the best drivers in the world in the best technology available”
        i couldn’t agree more with phrases!!!
        +1000000000

      10. Hang in there Seppo, for things can only get better.

      11. This. All this. Absolutely this. I love motor racing but Ecclestone sickens me.

    8. The Peraltada was never going to be back, but I hate the way they changed it. That loop in the stadium is alright, but why does it have to be so twisty and slow? a simple 90 degrees corner would’ve been better, in my opinion.

      Sure, we’ve not seen any activity on the new track, but looking at the onboard released a week ago, I hated that bit of the track. Too slow, too “Abu Dhabi kind of thing”.

      Chicanes should never ever be part of a track that’s being redesigned in its entirely like the Hermanos Rodriguez.

      1. a simple 90 degrees corner would’ve been better, in my opinion.

        Thats what Champcar used when they ran through there.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aRmexvizMg

        I believe the mentality behind the ‘new’ section in the stadium is to have the cars in there for longer so the fans in the stadium get to see the cars for a bit longer. Its also probably done with racing in mind as the simple 90 degree corner Champcar ran didn’t do anything from a racing standpoint (Nothing happened there at all in any of the races that used it) & I guess there hoping the new section will encourage some racing.

      2. “Never let common sense and flow get in the way of pushing a circuit’s turn count above 15.”

        – Herman ‘Paid By The Corner’ Tilke.

      3. Advertising. Anyone who thinks it’s for the fans benefit is kidding themselves, it’s purely so the companies on the billboards are easier to see and are on the screen for longer.

    9. Dieselgate !? Renault, I take a completely different view to Ms.Walker, I suspect, sadly, that diesel fueled cars will be (or have been) legislated out of practicality, and as such the motor industry will cease producing them and turn to petrol/gasoline and hybrids to replace them, in which case Renault may well want increase its R&D budget in small efficient turbocharged engine and hybrids using F1 as a tool for development and testing as well as publicizing their achievements (when they come) in this area, which surely was their intention when they first called for this formula.

      1. I think she raises a good point about hesitations on the side of automotive companyies @hohum, and I would certainly hope that it leads to more realistic testing vs reality.
        On the other hand, I too do not believe that it needs to go against eachother, as certainly Renault is to learn a lot from hybrid tech by their investments made into F1 and that will be needed a lot to be able to offer fuel efficient and emmission-sparce alternatives to the current diesels (I agree with you that Diesels will most likely see a large fall in preference in the coming years).

        1. @bascb, the last time there was a crisis, three manufacturers left at once (Honda, Toyota, and BMW), and with multiple reports claiming Ghosn is having second thoughts about the investments needed to continue (successfully) in F1, it is looking increasingly likely that they will walk away.

          The diesel scandal could therefore have far-reaching consequences for F1 (somewhat ironically, since F1 is promoting alternative technology). Just prior to the scandal breaking, VW was rumoured to be taking over Red Bull, but now it seems RBR, STR, and Lotus could fall off the grid next season. Where would that leave F1? There would only be 16 cars left, and that might mean 3-car teams. If we then have a normal, predictable race, then Mercedes, Ferrari and Williams could take 9 of the 10 points-scoring positions, which would not leave much incentive to compete for the likes of Force India and Sauber.

          But perhaps I’m getting carried away a bit with worst-case-scenario thinking here.

          1. yes, that is more or less what Walkter projects in her article @adrianmorse.

            For Renault to enter F1 it has been pretty clear all along that they expect the team to pay for its own budget from money received from CVC (opening the scenario of BE pushing Renault to deliver engines to RBR in return for gaingin their own special payment and contract for 8-9 years), from Total, from Infiniti as well as money they receive from RBR for early cancellation (and maybe now more money from supplying them with engines too).

            With our without the Diesel-crisis thing Renault, as a government controlled entity, and looking for ways to close costly and unneeded plants in Europe/France, was never going to be in a position where it could afford to be seen throwing a lot of money at F1. That is one of the reasons for the hesitations, they have to find other ways to get the budget together.

            As for VW being on the brink of signing on with RBR, I guess we will now never learn how far away from reality this was. IMO its quite likely that it was just used by the team to have at least some kind of bargaining chip in talks with Ferrari and Mercedes. Long term it might have happened (with RBR paying Audi to develp an engine for them), but it was almost certainly not going to get going for 2016 or even 2017. So we can hardly count them not entering as being a result of their Diesel hide-away act.

            Diesel-gate could be a reason given to quit, but also a good reason to start. But only if the sport looks like a good enough prospect to enter in the first place.The reality is that the current pay model leaving the haves entrenched, the way F1 shows itself off, the aura of corruption hanging around BE etc. have been the real brake on any new companies entering for a long time now.

    10. And here was me thinking a Vblock was what the pistons were going up and down in !

      1. +1 was thinking about engines as well :)

    11. Ian Laidler (@)
      21st October 2015, 1:44

      Bernie at it again, teams are already working on the cars for next year based on the current engines rules, now with 5 months before the start of the 2016 season he is threatening to force teams to revert to the old V8 format, I wonder if this is just another heavy handed move to try and force Ferrari or Mercedes to supply RBR with power units, or has Bernie really gone and lost the plot.

      I think that a return to the V8 format would actually be a good move in 2017 but come on Bernie wake up to reality your threat to impose this change on teams for 2016 is unrealistic.

      1. Why not just go for the chevy LS7, they are easily bought for less than $12k a piece, if that (cheap V8 power) is what you want.

        1. @hohum I was thinking something similar, although maybe keep the current engine format and allow a purely off the shelf customer V8 for those that want it, something like the old Cosworth.

          That way we can kill two birds with one stone, those who can’t afford or get the V6 engines have an alternative to go racing with and those V6 detractors can eat humble pie as the more powerful and torquey V6’s embarrass the V8’s into closing the argument of the old engines being better.

          1. keep the current engine format and allow a purely off the shelf customer V8 for those that want it, something like the old Cosworth.

            Problem with that idea is that anyone who took a 2013 spec V8 would stand little chance of competing against the V6’s because despite all the complaints about the V6’s they are actually quite a bit better than the V8’s in terms of overall performance.

            Also remember that the Cosworth V8 wasn’t that good an engine compared to the others. It was heavier, Under-powered, less drivable & used more fuel which is why by 2013 Marussia were the only team left running it although by that point they had already done a deal to switch to Ferrari.

            1. @gt-racer Exactly, hence the last sentence from my post. Also my use of Cosworth as an example was purely based on its status as an independent supplier, but even if it was a Mercedes, I am sure there would be the same outcome, no-one wanting it and those who do use it serving to emphasize how good the performance of the new engines are relative to the old one (which some people still fail to grasp – bigger and noisier must be better).

    12. I understand that the Peraltada couldn’t be kept due to safety reasons. However, why couldn’t more of it be kept? Surely they could have exited the stadium section earlier in the corner rather than half way, leaving only really the exit remaining?

      I had something like this in mind. The hairpin ensures they enter the corner at the lowest possible speed, ensuring that the cars are going at a safe speed mid corner. This way we could have seen more of the lovely corner.

      1. Not to mention the fans in the stadium getting more action.

      2. I like that layout far more than the one we’ve ended up with… only problem I see is the pit entry, might be dangerous with higher speed at that location.

        1. I don’t think it’s any more dangerous than say Korea.

      3. If the Baseball stadium woudn’t have been there, they might have had quite a few alternative choices (like creating runoff by moving to turn inward a bit), but as its already there the design hat to take that in account.

        What you propose looks interesting @jarnooo, but it would mean tearing down and rebuilding about half of the stadium. Not something that would be considered I would think!

        1. Absolutely too late now of course, I just think a better solution could have been thought of in the first place. That said, hopefully the layout inside the stadium changes for next year.

      4. Surely the best solution would have been to move the pit complex further down the main straight and rebuild a “safe” Peraltada (i.e. the same corner, but with adequate run-off) before the baseball stadium.

        1. A lot of the land on the infield is publicly owned & there are a lot of other community facilities around the track which they were unable to touch when making the alterations.

          http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Autodromo-Hermanos-Rodriguez-2015.jpg

      5. Surely they could have exited the stadium section earlier in the corner rather than half way, leaving only really the exit remaining?

        Its a baseball stadium & the grandstands were built for that purpose which is why they are laid out the way they are.

    13. This one seems to be brand new… maybe from earlier this week…

      Again… it looks narrow :O

      YouTube

    14. Everyone talks about Bernie “losing the plot”, but in reality, no one can keep up with the 84 yr old fox! He’ll say things to provoke, irritate, prod & confuse you. Just when you think he’s gone completely bonkers, he’ll have you signing on the dotted line.
      I finally realised the guy is one of the main reasons I still watch F1 going on 45 yrs.!

      1. So “long live the great dictator” then? Someone has lost the plot. Or maybe because I don’t wear a Rolex I am completely behind the times…

    15. maybe VB should stop driving like he’s going on a Sunday afternoon drive. I know Kimi got the penalty but im just wondering if some of the decisions made by the stewards are not somehow influenced by the conmentators. After hearing both commentaries on Sky and Bbc, Coulthard squarely put the blame on Kimi, he practically acted like the judge, jury and prosecutor.
      I know thats one incident but at times you.get a small accident and the commentator asks for SC and it comes out when it wasnt needed at all

      1. Eh, @mim5 don’t you think it was as easy to blame Kimi because it was just as clear as can be that putting his car there would end up in an accident?

        Bottas wouldn’t even have been able to see Kimi from the angle they were, Kimi was clearly behind and had no chance of not hitting the Williams. And no, SC do not get out because “the commenters ask for it” in F1. Otherwise we would have seen far more SC situations this year!

      2. It’s easy to blame Kimi because it was clearly his fault. That was a desperate last minute lunge that would have been inappropriate in F3 (and that is saying something given their antics this year).

        Kimi is a seasoned pro, he should have known the move wasn’t on. Bottas took his normal line because he knew Kimi was no closer than he had been all race and that the move wasn’t on. It was sloppy driving from Raikkonen.

      3. @mim5

        I’m just wondering if some of the decisions made by the stewards are not somehow influenced by the commentators

        I suspect the chances of that being the case are exactly nil.

      4. im just wondering if some of the decisions made by the stewards are not somehow influenced by the conmentators

        How can the stewards be influenced by something they don’t have access to?

      5. Maybe KR should stop driving like a mad man.

        1. He makes one error, and that’s enough to make him a madman?

      6. It was a bit of a longshot by the Iceman on the Niceman, but I think that RAI and BOT are both very situationally aware, and that an occasional split second misstep is hardly a reason to judge either of them too harshly.

    16. Well I don’t believe it was impossible to keep the Peraltada, it was a simple matter of moving the entire bend back by let’s say 100m and put runoff and gravel inside and out.

      In fact I’m almost certain they looked into that but the problem is that it would’ve meant less seats in that area and a very short lap overall.
      Looking at the overhead video is evident that it’s still there, hopefully some day a brave F1 driver (and team) decides to go around it flat out for a demo or something, well one can dream.

      1. yes, I think the biggest issue with moving the corner would have been the fact that it would have forced them to tear down the Baseball stadium @mantresx.

    17. Nice to see Chandhok wanting to build something up in India. Sure enough there is a huge talent pool available to tap into!

    18. If Bernie wants us to go back to older engines, I’ll go along with that as long as we also go back to wire wheels, cigar-shaped aluminium bodies, front-mounted engines and no aero. Back to 1960 in other words, when F1 cars looked the best. Or are we both nuts?

      What I’d like to see is a move to hydrogen-powered F1 cars by 2020. That would be interesting, relevant, challenging and just the sort of technology F1 should be promoting. But it’s not going to happen with Bernie at the wheel.

      Normally aspirated V8 engines? So last century.

      1. Before anyone points it out, most F1 designs were rear-engined by 1960… but I like the look of the 1955-1960 front-engined cars best.

      2. What I’d like to see is a move to hydrogen-powered F1 cars by 2020. That would be interesting, relevant, challenging and just the sort of technology F1 should be promoting.

        Interesting and challenging, yes. Relevant? I’m not so sure.

        Assuming you mean relevant to road cars, there are immense challenges with Hydrogen. It takes a lot of energy to liquify it, which is pretty much the only way to store it in a usable manner. On top of that, it’s much more dangerous then petrol if something goes wrong, meaning it needs even stronger fuel tanks. Even so, it escapes from any tank you put it in, and it causes metals to become brittle over time. These could all be overcome for racing, but not for road cars which have to last years.

        Also, almost all hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels because producing it from water is so inefficient.

        We could have had Hydrogen powered cars for decades. It takes little modification to run a normal petrol engine on H2. But these problems have stumped everyone.

    19. @bascb its easy to blame Kimi but its also clear that VB left the door wide open and decided to shut it once Kimi was on the inside , that corner was a prime overtaking spot all weekend, and not that many overtakes resulted in accidents. and VB not seeing Kimi is a poor excuse as poor as his defensive driving. In my view penalty or not, Kimi was racing, VB was having a drive.
      Ahout the commentators, i was just giving my views and the VSC has somewhat reduced the instances of the SC

      1. No, @mim5 this is you seeing things that were never there

        but its also clear that VB left the door wide open and decided to shut it once Kimi was on the inside

        One could even say that a bit of calculative behaviour might have been involved – Kimi would lose his spot in the championship to Bottas would they finish like they were on the road, and lunging there would at worst end with both out, not scoring, at best it would help Kimi gain points over Bottas. It worked out for Kimi, despite the penalty.

    20. How can Bernie expect us to buy the argument that V8’s will make the racing better when the last 9 races in a row in the V8 era were won by the same car and driver?

      1. It was the right car for Bernie.

    21. Engines don’t make a difference at all to how good the racing is. None at all. We’ve had classic seasons with V10 engines (1997. 1999, 2003) and abhorrent ones (2002, 2004). We’ve had classic seasons with the V8 engines and abhorrent ones as well. As for now, we have had one good season with the V6 engines and one boring season.

      There’s no correlation whatsoever between how many cylinders there are in the cars and how good the racing is. You’d think this would be common sense, but apparently not for a lot of Formula 1 fans.

      At the end of the day, there are only two things which improve racing:

      1. Closely matched field with variety in the pecking order
      2. Cars that can follow each other more easily

      Anything else, such as asking for bigger engines, more downforce, etc… is just pure nonsense by fans blinded with nostalgia.

      1. @kingshark, Good post, I agree with everything you said apart from the first statement. With a basic n/a engine manufacturers will find the maximum performance within the regulations fairly quickly, meaning differences between them will be minimal thus living up to your point #1. The current V6+ERS PU’s although more industry-relevant, are much more complex and thus causing big performance differences and a far less closely matched field.

        You could argue that with time performance gaps will tighten, and I guess that’s a valid argument. Meanwhile we have to accept a period of maybe 3 years of domination (from first year onwards). I’m sure without even without the new aero and tire rules, 2017 would be a lot better than 2015 purely through closer competition caused by the PU’s.

      2. I can’t remember reading a more sensible comment than that one over the last 3 years @kingshark.

      3. @kingshark
        Yes, there is no correlation between number of cylinders and how exciting the season is. However current regulations (partly forced because of the engines) act to deprive of racing. The field is not close due to the costs and for similar reason the pecking order stays stale. The cars also behave so boring and lazy on the track, there is no feeling of the edge-of-your-seat stuff when watching them in the corners. Add current Pirellis and DRS. Perfect recipe to destroy F1.

      4. that’s crazy talk.

    22. I really can’t get why people think calling the EU to intervene is a good idea. Do people really not learn from history? It was the EU that forced the sale of the commercial rights and therefore the organization of F1 is in now. They caused this mess to begin with!

      It’s even more bizarre that people think something will actually change in the competition if the budget gap is narrowed by insignificant amounts. How is a 100 million outfit ever going to compete with a 300million one like Mercedes or 450million one like Ferrari? Would a 110 million budget for the small team really make a noticeable difference?

      Or would giving all teams the same token voting powers as the big ones really change anything? No of course not.

      Please try to think in the sense of what could and will most likely change instead of simply raging at the word “unfair”.

      1. @patrickl As far as my understanding goes, the reason that the EU insisted on splitting the commercial rights from the regulatory body was that there was the scope for a conflict of interest. With the Concorde agreement (which formalised the relationship between the three parties (teams, FIA, Commercial rights holder) coming to an end, individual contracts were negotiated with Bernie rather than a new Concorde agreement being signed which not only resulted in an inequitable distribution of money, but also started to blur the previously well defined relationship between the three. Of more relevance was the function creep over recent years such as the Strategy Group which gives the Commercial rights holder an influence once more over the sporting and technical regulations which the EU tried to keep separate.

        I think most of the smaller teams would bite your hand off for a 10% increase in prize money which, whilst maybe not resulting in a performance increase, could mean the difference between suppliers being paid on time or not, reducing a team’s need for drivers bringing a budget, or even just paying a circuit for the use of a hospitality suite.

        1. @asenator, Never understood the conflict of interest stuff though. Or more importantly, it’s much worse now. The commercial rights holder is milking the commercial rights for all it’s worth, completely ruining the sport in the process.

          Circuits are being squeezed out so much that governments need to pay millions for the pleasure of being allowed to organize a race. People are unable to watch F1 on normal TV because the commercial rights owner is only selling to the highest bidder and that means pay channels.

          The commercial rights holder is now running the show in a way that utterly conflicts with what the sport needs and we have the EU to thank for this mess. There really is no other way about it.

          The strategy group has no regulatory powers at all. The FIA in the form of the F1 commission is in charge of actual regulatory changes.

          The strategy workgroup could of course be disbanded, but the FIA will need to discuss with the parties involved what would be good changes to the regulations. It’s impossible for the FIA to just decide regulation changes in a vacuum. Mosley tried that and it was a disaster.

          I’m sure FI and Sauber would bite my hand of for a 10% increase in budget. Otherwise they wouldn’t have called the EU with the risk of more ruin for the sport and face the backlash that inevitably will come from Bernie. That wasn’t the question though. The claim was that this would fix the competitive chasm between the mid field teams and top teams. It really won’t.

    23. Just when I thought that Bernie might be a sound of reason during this challenging period in F1 he comes up with a ‘wonderful’ proposal: “Let’s demolish a Victorian House to build even older one.” Frankly, this is beyond me.

      1. Maybe he is about to step down and hand his job to a 92 year old man along with the V8 engines.

    24. What’s wrong with F1 today? The constant cacophony of whining from “fans” and the media. F1 goes up and down throughout it’s history – it will survive and thrive.

      1. Agree and as long as people are on F1 sites moaning they are still watching so the audience is there. Worryingly is WEC as if VAG group have to pull out there will only be Nissan and Toyota left as competitive LMP1 entries.

        F1 has a huge issue when no one cares enough to comment on it and sites like this have no one coming onto them. F1 is world class at creating debate and people cannot help themselves.

      2. I think this ‘F1 will survive no matter what’ mentality is the quickest way to its demise. as far as we know, F1 is in serious trouble, with 2 race-winning teams on the verge of disappearing and 3 other ones in serious economical troubles. Also, we should acknowledge that the fans ‘on F1 sites moaning’ don’t make nearly enough people to sustain a global and expensive sport as F1 is now. It needs the casual viewer [if not the guy who watches every now and then, at least the guy who watches the races and nothing else] and maybe it won’t be sustainable even with them, whether we like it or not.

        That is not to say motorsport will disappear. It probable won’t. But F1, at least as we know it, just might.

        1. As long as there is motorsport there will be F1. F1 would be the last to fall. With the VW crisis I think people do not realise how in jeopardy WEC is.

          F1 is like motorsports Eastenders, full of nasty horrible headlines but people cannot get enough of it. Look at articles across the internet on F1 and good stories or technical articles or great races from the past are dwarfed by the attention and comments people give to things like Red Bull pulling out, the engines are rubbish, F1 should not race in this country or that.. same with news papers bad news and hysteria sell the best, F1 by luck or design feeds off this and people cannot help but have an opinion on it which means there is an audience, since F1 went to pay channels the official viewing figures have gone down but if you could measure the amount of people watching through pirate streams or going round someone’s house as they have pay t.v the audience is likely as big as ever.

          I wonder what the stats are for traffic on F1 Fanatic since it’s inception year on year, same? more? less?

      3. Thrive? ahahahahahahahaha

        F1 is at all time low. There might as well be a world war going on.

        1. F1 is still by far the largest championship in motorsport and I do not see anything having got closer so then motorsport in general might have shrunk. F1 is huge, reading comments on what people would change bring about contrasting opinions so no matter what you change people will still moan and people who moan can be heard more than those who are content.

          Next year is the 3rd year of these engines and I think like with all previous years the longer the rules stay similar the closer the field gets. I am fairly sure Honda and Renault will be closer next year and Ferrari will be closer to Merc, my opinion is this is brewing up nicely for a very good season.

    25. No way to keep Peraltada ? Wrong ! As always they choose the easiest and cheapest way, but there were many options.

      – Move the corner where the Mickey Mouse stadium is.
      – Add SAFER walls.
      – Slow the corner down. Just a bit.
      – If turn 3 in Russia is safe enough, then a revised Peraltada can be safe enough.

      Truth is they didn’t want to spend the money to save the corner.

      1. Move the road behind the original corner? If you can build a 3 mile plus circuit you could come to a solution for a bit of road 300 meters in length. Even if they kept the corner though it would look like a huge car park with only a white line distinguishing the corner from the enormous run off but in the name of safety I would accept that. The reason is money and if the corner would have to have a huge run off it would not be the same so money would be spent for a lesser version of the original corner but with the deaths in racing over the past 12 months who can argue with safety? The corner could never be what it once was with cars of these speeds.

      2. – Move the corner where the Mickey Mouse stadium is.

        The stadium is built inside an existing baseball stadium that i’m fairly sure they plan to continue playing baseball there so destroying that was never going to be an option.

        – Add SAFER walls.

        As was described by GTRacer in an earlier comment the problem is more than just a lack of runoff so safer walls would not solve all the safety concerns.

        – Slow the corner down. Just a bit.

        How? If you can’t change anything on either side because of roads & the stadium what can you do to slow it down?

        – If turn 3 in Russia is safe enough, then a revised Peraltada can be safe enough.

        totally different corner, turn 3 in russia is a lot wider, a lot more open, has enough runoff to install several layers of tecpro barrier & is a lot slower than peraltada would be.

        if the indycar’s that are built to race on ovals didn’t even try to run through peraltada when they last raced there a decade ago i don’t see why anyone thought f1 would consider doing it.

        1. As was described by GTRacer in an earlier comment the problem is more than just a lack of runoff so safer walls would not solve all the safety concerns.

          In fact, no runoff and a SAFER wall (like in Nascar) is safer than just a few meters of runoff. If you have runoff, there must be a lot of it.

          That’s what I meant about turn 3 in Russia: I know it’s a different corner, but I’m convinced that with no runoff and a SAFER wall, Grosjean’s crash would have been less violent. The 5-10m of runoff allowed the car to take more angle, the tecpro barriers made the car spin on impact (thus inflicting a lot of G to the driver).

          ps: sorry for my approximative english, I’m french (nobody’s perfect ;-) )

    26. Almost any engine would be a HUGE improvement over these terrible power units that I like to call Mosley’s folly.

      1. You are aware Mosley had about as much to do with these engines (which, by the way, are far from a disaster) as he has to do with electing the next Pope?

        1. Actually, I heard something about Mosley in Argentina at a Nazi-themed S & M party with the now current Pope, so crazier things could happen…

    27. http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2012/02/15/mexicos-interlagos-perfect-f1/

      Hah, don’t know if you’ve already unearthed this article ahead of the Mexican GP, or you will in the build-up, @keithcollantine. It’s brilliant in retrospect.

    28. It’s a time/money decision to eliminate Peraltada, which admittedly would be difficult to include, but it kind of fits with the current F1 that 2nd best is good enough and Tilke has never seen a circuit he can’t ruin.

      On the car front, imagine we had Senna / Prost in the Merc team. I wouldn’t complain about that, although I’d still insist that the rest of the field needs the opportunity to catch up. Sadly, Hamilton / Rosberg is a total dud. If Bernie were serious about creating interest, without blowing up the formula with V8’s and double/triple/quadruple points and fake rain or whatever, he’d agitate to get Rosberg out and Alonso or Vettel in the Merc for 2016. That’s a really simple change, wouldn’t take much money to make it happen.

    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'.