Start, Circuit of the Americas, 2015

Hamilton told team Rosberg move was not deliberate

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Lewis Hamilton told his team on the radio he did not intend to force Nico Rosberg wide on the first lap in Austin.

Tweets

Comment of the day

A second engine formula isn’t a solution to F1’s problems, says @gt-racer:

Coming up with something that gives one set of regulations an advantage over another and creating a two-tier formula will do nothing for the competition because if one set of rules has an advantage over the other were still going to see big performance gaps and dominance.

Lets say for example that Red Bull went with one of these 2.2-litre engines and that the rules gave them significant advantages, you’re just going to replace Mercedes dominance with Red Bull dominance and if no other top team goes with this second engine spec its probably going to be by a greater margin.

And with the engine manufacturer’s wanting to stay with the formula we have now and each owning a factory team (If Renault buy Lotus) and Honda supplying McLaren, Your potentially going to force them out of F1 by basically pushing them towards a formula none of them want.

Turning F1 into a two-tier championship with two different sets of regulations isn’t the way to go and certainly isn’t the way to try and improve the level of competition throughout the field.
@gt-racer

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Luigismen, Xivizmath and Jayfreeseknight!

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

Ian Ashley, who started four F1 races in the mid-seventies is 67 today. In the twilight of his career he raced a Vauxhall Cavalier in the 1993 British Touring Car Championship.

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

  • 107 comments on “Hamilton told team Rosberg move was not deliberate”

    1. Yes (@come-on-kubica)
      26th October 2015, 1:50

      Regarding COTD, isn’t that what we have already?

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        26th October 2015, 7:23

        No!

        COTD is about 2 sets of regulations @come-on-kubica

      2. I think @come-on-kubica ‘s point is that half the teams already have absolutely zero chance of winning a race. You’re never going to have 10 teams going neck-and-neck for the constructors. A two-tier formula is just embracing reality.

      3. @come-on-kubica – Exactly what I thought. You currently have those who make engines and can control the pace of the rest of the field and those who don’t…..

        There is absolutely ZERO chance that over the course of a season, anyone with a Mercedes or Ferrari engine will beat Mercedes or Ferrari. Imagine if it was Williams actually challenging Mercedes for the Constructors… Would Mercedes supply them with information and developments or would they delay everything to ensure their team won? We’ve already seen how willing they are to sell engines to other competitive teams!

      4. What we have now is a not a two-tier formula, Everyone runs to the exact same set of regulations & while you can argue some have less chance of competing with the top teams (Thats always been the case & always will be) I don’t see how creating a defined 2nd tier running to a different set of regulations helps them.

        If this 2nd tier features a rules set that gives overall less performance, Who would want to run in it?
        And if it gives a performance advantage over the current formula then it’s just Bernie trying to kill the current formula he hates so much via the backdoor.

        I’d also point out that even the smaller teams this two-tier idea is been designed to help don’t really want F1 to become a defined two-tier formula, They want to compete against all the other teams in the same set of regulations so that on those days when you get a Force India, Lotus or Sauber on the podium they can say they beat some of the best on merit rather than because the set of regulations they run to was better on that day.

    2. I can believe that LH’s move was not deliberate, however that means by him saying that, that there was cause for comment about it, and at a bare minimum he overcooked the corner and ran NR wide and did not leave him a car width. Because he claims it wasn’t deliberate that means he is exonerated? I know he’s exonerated because nothing was going to make a difference to the WDC, and it is interesting reading Kimi’s comments about his race and his issues with the inconsistency of the rules and when and to whom they are applied depending on the circumstances. It would have been unpopular to penalize LH for not leaving NR room ie. affecting the Championship with a boardroom decision, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t penalty worthy as per the leave-a-car-width rule and wasn’t bad play on LH’s part.

      1. There is no such rule. The one car width rule is for blocking on straights. I keep seeing this point come up but it’s not a thing.

        1. +1
          Charlie Whiting has explained that this rule is only a measure to prevent secondary defensive moves on the run into a corner, and the text of the reg makes that clear: “Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner.”

          There is absolutely no obligation to leave space on the exit of a corner when attacking.

          1. Except for the rule that states you cannot force or crowd another car off the circuit. Except that.

            1. @nick101 That rule has never applied at the exit of the corner, as we must have seen hundreds of times by now. Look at Vettel and Button at the Hockenheimring in 2012 for example – Button wasn’t penalised for forcing Vettel off.

              The quote in the third paragraph here explains it: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2012/07/12/fia-issues-clarification-defensive-driving/

            2. Sorry @keithcollantine, but you are wrong.

              In this case it was not the defending driver moving back on line and forcing the attacker off, but the attacker forcing the defender off, so article 20.3 of the sporting regs does not apply here.

              However, article 20.5 does. Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are not permitted.

              Blind Freddy could see from the on board of Hamiltons car that he was doing exactly that.

              Saying that Hamilton didn’t mean it because he said so on the team radio is absurd.

              I’m baffled why people cannot interoperate or understand the regulations, especially article 20.3, which is incorrectly referenced here and not relevant.

            3. That rule has never applied at the exit of the corner, as we must have seen hundreds of times by now. Look at Vettel and Button at the Hockenheimring in 2012 for example – Button wasn’t penalised for forcing Vettel off.

              The quote in the third paragraph here explains it: http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2012/07/12/fia-issues-clarification-defensive-driving/

              Sorry Keith, I must have missed the regulation that states ‘All regulations don’t apply on the exit of corners’, can you tell me what article number it is?

              Look, I accept that if someone is on the outside of the racing line they are most likely, and should expect, to be run out of road. But this was not the case with Hamilton/Rosberg. Even all the commentators suggested that Hamilton made no attempt to turn the corner. He basically straight lined it and forced Rosberg off.

              Besides which, the Hamilton/Rosberg incident on the weekend was NOT on the exit of the corner, it was in the middle of it.

              And anyone who tries to draw ANY similarity between this incident and the Button/Vettel incident in 2012 is having a laugh. They are in no way similar. Button initially left enough room for Vettel, but it was Vettel who decided to leave the track – and subsequently received a penalty for doing so.

              Any way you cut it, it was not a great move and more than a little cheeky from Hamilton.

            4. Hamilton has a history of very aggressive moves on Rosberg, many of which could have ended up in contact had it not been for Rosberg diving out of the way.

              That’s what infuriated me about the whole Spa 2014 attack by the Hamilton fans on Rosberg. The one time he is aggressive on Hamilton and it ends in tears because Hamilton is either too stupid or arrogant to avoid the contact, as he forces Rosberg to on many occasions.

              Just review the many chops Hamilton puts on Rosberg at Bahrain 2014 for ample evidence. You can be rest assured if the situations were reversed and it was Rosberg chopping Hamilton, first of all there would be contact because Hamilton wouldn’t get out of the way, second of all Rosberg would be hung out to dry by the team and the fans, and thirdly Hamilton would be praised for holding his ground – all the things Rosberg was crucified for.

              The double standards applied to Hamilton by his fans is sickening!

              Having said all of the above, despite his dirty driving against his team mate, Hamilton is clearly the better driver of the two and deserves to have beaten him in the championship.

            5. @nick101

              I must have missed the regulation

              It was the link in my previous reply.

            6. @nick101:
              It’s perfectly clear that 20.5 is talking about an ‘abnormal change of direction’, which is just that – a movement not consistent with the racing line which causes the other car to be crowded off the track. The only change of direction Lewis took was to take the corner on the racing line. Rosberg did bang wheels with him in the middle of the corner, but that was the result of Rosberg himself attempting to make a move that was never going to work. The onboard footage is very clear, at no point does Lewis turn towards Rosberg, he makes a single, clean left turn on the racing line, which Rosberg has missed.

              It was a hard, aggressive move, to be sure. But that’s what separates World Champions from also-rans. And it was completely legal.

            7. @charleski

              My God, article 20.5 of the regs is only 1 sentence long and people still can’t understand it.

              20.5 Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the
              edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are not permitted

              Deliverate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track OR any other abnormal change of direction.

              Two different things, hence the use of the word OR.

              Second of all, who said anything about Hamilton turning towards Rosberg? And who says you have to turn into someone to force them off the track? The simple fact of the matter is Hamilton straight lined the corner as opposed to going around it. On the very first review of Hamilton’s on board it was the very first thing Martin Brundle commented on. Hamilton barely had 45 deg of steering lock on for a more than 270 deg corner and he was not under steering. Anyone who doesn’t have Hamilton fanboy blinkers on can see it plain as day.

            8. @nick101: No.

              The reg clearly regards deliberately crowding off another car as an abnormal change in direction, and also covers any other abnormal change. The use of the word ‘other’ makes that clear and deliberately misinterpreting it doesn’t prove your point. This rule was introduced as a result of the Schumacher/Barichello incident in the 2010 Hungarian GP, which offers a clear example of what it regards.

              The fact is that Rosberg had plenty of space, and if he’d had sense enough to realise Lewis had possession of the inside line he’d have ducked behind to try a cut-back, as many others have pointed out. As was seen many times during the rest of the race, the natural racing line on that corner involves going wide on the exit, this was especially true at the start with a full load on inters.

              Yes, you do have to turn into someone to force them off the track. You’re trying to suggest that drivers are obliged to get out of the way of their competitors, which is laughable. Whether attacking or defending, a driver has the responsibility to estimate what his competitor will do and react accordingly, which Rosberg failed to do in this instance. Instead he delibreatley turned into Lewis and hit him. Mercedes was lucky that he only ended up banging wheels and didn’t cause more serious damage.

      2. He was always going to hang him out to dry. Unfortunately if you try the outside line its a huge risk especially with that corner

        1. @johns23 – And on top of that, if you try the outside line against Lewis (as Nico already knew very well), you are going to end up off the track!

          1. That used to be like that, but doing that has been frowned upon and even penalized at more than one occasion ever since a few years ago.
            I’m personally ok with Hamilton’s move (I think it was deliberate) in itself, but since this is F1 and there are rules to be followed, that can’t be allowed.
            Vettel was penalized last year at Monza for doing it to Alonso in a WAY less blatant and less on purpose way.

      3. Yeah, he is too good not to do that deliberately IMO @robbie.

        However the rules don’t give any specifics about having to leave space in the corners (as we heard Kimi complaining about on the radio too), so it is not the job of the stewards to interfere here.

        The team itself now mentions they will have a talk about it with Hamilton, but I really don’t see what they can do about it – will they dock him his pay like they did with Rosberg after that incident in Spa that set the tone for Hamilton being more agressive and Rosberg bowing out on every incident since then? Off course they won’t, the guy just got crowned WDC (deservedly, Hamilton was clearly on it this year) and Lauda loves him.

        1. @bascb – the issue I would have with the start, if I was running the team, would be with the distinct possibility of the two Mercs tangling and throwing away positions, robbing my team of constructor’s championship points.
          In other words, we’re talking about internal risk management rather than adherence to a non-existent rule. This scenario where one driver doesn’t have the racing line – and the other hangs him out to dry – happens too often for comfort. This is where team orders can be used, in cases where both drivers are so bull-headed that they won’t cede any space or choose a different line (cutting back, for example, which Rosberg doesn’t seem to want to do against Hamilton).

          1. YEah, well, I think we have seen Rosberg do exactly that (pull out of a move) in the past year or so when fighting on track with Hamilton. And Hamilton knows it and uses that to his advantage. In hindsight, maybe they shouldn’t have overreacted after Spa 2015, but its not as if Rosberg wasn’t the one to give in most of the time even before that (I think that was exactly what Spa 2015 was – Rosberg trying to stop that trend, it backfired) already. Its one of the reasons Hamilton is a multiple champion – he just wants to get ahead!

            And why would the team issue team orders if its more or less a straight fight between their drivers for the championship, with one having only an outside chance? Do you think they should tell Hamilton not to attack in that first turn (after Rosberg got pole)?

            The WDC has already been decided, so there is not all that much at risk for the team apart from throwing away their image by ordering their drivers around.

            1. @BascB

              I think we have seen Rosberg do exactly that (pull out of a move) in the past year or so when fighting on track with Hamilton.

              He did it twice to Lewis at Sochi! I cant even belive this is an incident is being discussed. For such a corner, it was a textbook move from Lewis, and ALL drivers would have done the same if put in that position, at that corner.

              Rosberg was fighting for an increasingly non existing space. A more aware driver would have known that, and known when to give it up. There was only ever going to be one outcome.

        2. Many drivers went off in turn 1. Including Hamilton.

          Although of course he could have avoided it by braking earlier, but then so could Rosberg since he knew he was passed anyway.

      4. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
        26th October 2015, 8:16

        Lol of course it was deliberate. Rosberg is just not able to see these moves coming for some reason.

      5. @robbie My first reaction was that Hamilton understeered like many other drivers did in T1 (leading to at least 5 counts of contact). Brundle then seemed to suggest he hung him out to dry.. This might run on a bit like Monaco 2014.

      6. Firstly it’s possible he got the corner wrong, especially with cold tyres on the first lap. But secondly as everyone keeps saying but half the people won’t hear, nobody sensible would expect to be given a free pass-by from Hamilton when he has the inside line and the corner in effect. Raikonnen banjaxed Bottas last race and he still thinks he was right! It’s racing and in this case nothing was damaged except Rosberg’s pride. And thirdly Rosberg will never regain my sympathy over these kinds of incidents after pulling the Monaco qualifying stunt and taking Hamilton out at Spa last year. Hamilton can push him off track as many times as he likes if the stewards think it’s fine. Any team spirit or etiquette was burnt by Rosberg himself last year. He escalated minor gripes over engine settings and not being let past etc. into Schumacher-style dirty tricks. Those have consequences. Live with them Rosberg.

      7. Eh? There is no such rule in first corner incidents. You can go and play back as many races as you like, no ones get penalty for a first corner racing incident as there are so many cars around also considering wet conditions. No such rule as leaving a cars width esp in the first corner. The only one I can remember in recent times is Grojeans incident in SPA with Hamilton and Alonso, he got a penalty for that.

    3. Red Bull spend all their money on a brilliant chassis and aerodynamics and wonder why no one wants to supply them with an engine! Silly!

    4. Red Bulls passed Mercedes on track, and managed to build a gap with a down on power Renault engine. That speaks a lot about their aero. If I were Mercedes or Ferrari, I’d definitely not hand over my biggest advantage to a rival, just to let them beat me. It’s not fear, it’s competition

      1. It’s fear of competition… because at the moment there isn’t any conpetition at all.

        1. While Red Bull say it is because the engine Renault supplied them with isn’t powerful enough, the fact is Renault brought some better engines to America for the US GP and Red Bull chose to not run them.

          1. Had they done so, they’d’ve had 10-place grid penalties, like Ferrari did

            1. Vettel finished third.

            2. And that has what to do with the grid penalty he had?

      2. They were overtaken by Toro Rosso in the dry. What does that say about Toro Rosso’s chassis and aero then? Better than Red Bull. Pretty sure no one believes that.
        What is most likely is that Red Bull gambled on a wet weather setup – an alll-or-nothing move which unfortunately didn’t pay off.
        Renault were fine, as proved by Verstappen’s 4th place.

        1. I agree with Sumdedh here, Red Bull knew that in the dry they wouldn’t stand a chance so they put their chips on a wet race and it would have payed off for them had it been wetter. But it didn’t.

        2. Great point mate. When the track dried RB disappeared.

        3. Exactly.

          Even if the gamble failed it would still pay off though, they can then pretend that it was only their engine that’s letting them down.

          Of course Verstappen in the Torro Rosso finishing so high up ruined that for them a bit.

      3. @brianfrank302

        Red Bulls passed Mercedes on track, and managed to build a gap with a down on power Renault engine. That speaks a lot about their aero.

        Errrrm…no. It speaks more about gambling with a wet weather setup. Simple.

    5. I saw his onboard and looks like he didn’t have grip there, something like what he did to Ricciardo on Hungary.
      He was already turning but the car went straight into Rosberg.

      Rosberg is a good pal, he doesn’t deserve these things. But since Spa his starts have been pretty bad. He needs do work on that.

      1. That’s how it looked to me. A wet track, cold tyres and a full tank are a recipe for understeer (although being uphill would have helped mitigate this a bit).

        I was surprised by Brundle’s comment – suggesting the Lewis could have turned the steering wheel more, or words to that effect. My understanding was that when you lose traction (in this case, on the front tyres, known as understeer) you need to do something to regain it – here by reducing the angle of the wheels. Turned the wheel more is just going to put the tyres at a greater angle to the direction of travel, reducing breaking and turning effectiveness even further.

        I’m am very willing to be corrected by someone who knows these things better however.

        1. To me it looked like he wasn’t understeering at all, the front wheels seemed to be travelling where he was pointing them without drama and there was no momentary increase/decrease in rotation that you can normally pick up on when watching a slow-mo. I think he was purposely not using as much steering angle as he could have. Saying that, I don’t think the contact was on purpose; it was a ‘I’m going here, where you go is up to you’ situation (which is totally fair imo) and it unfortunately ended in contact. Mercedes will be able to tell via telemetry whether he was understeering but I doubt we’ll get any info there.

          I do think the incident should have been under investigation though; a collision was caused, which I thought was an automatic investigation? I don’t think it’s even clear-cut whether it deserved some sort of penalty or not

          1. Collision, or just bumping and rubbing? Because the latter has always been part of racing.

            1. +1, need these small incidents for good racing. Drivers need to be on the edge and be last on brakes and try as hard as they can to fight for a place. If not it will be poor racing!

            2. @raceprouk I agree, I was using the word collision as the official term for any contact, rather than expressing an opinion on the severity of the incident. I’m a touring car nut so I’m well up for a bit of rubbing haha, but when it’s purposeful contact or when no effort is put into avoiding it, then it deserves investigating imo

      2. Agreed. Damp track, cold tires, cold brakes, a full tank and Nico keeping him on the center of the track are a recipe for understeer. Nico should have known that could happen and just played it straight. Why risk compromising your race going into the first corner when you know there will be changeable conditions and thus opportunities to get the lead if you don’t have it after the first corner.

        1. Lewis struggled with turn 1 the whole race too and asked his engineer for help getting it right so I don’t believe he intentionally went for Rosberg. He is fully entitled to defend hard though. Rosberg should have learnt by now and be trying the switchback as he must know what Lewis will do by now and if he doesn’t then he doesn’t deserve to be a WDC.

          1. When Lewis asked for help about driving through turn 1 he know that he would be denied any information. The purpose of that call was to put “on record” that he was struggling with understeer at that corner in the event of there being an investigation – official or otherwise. Brundle was surprised by the radio message because he commented that Lewis never asks anyone for driving advice on the radio.

    6. “I said one race ago, I feel like I had the baton down for myself and Ayrton and will carry it as long as I can and as strong as I can”

      Jeez..thats a bit rich, dont you think?

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        26th October 2015, 7:29

        I trained myself to ignore his Senna comments.

        Notwithstanding that, great 3rd WDC.

      2. Lewis, to emulate Senna, you have to be more than a great driver, which you are. Senna’s greatness was not only his mastery on the track, but also the Champion he was outside of it. Create a foundation, be a caring individual, about the social, important issues of the world. As a Champion, as a public figure, as an example for the newer generations, what you say and do can influence positively the future. Be coherent. On the track, don’t forget, Senna, contrary to Schumacher, for example, was praised by his team mates (excluding Prost, obviously). Be recognised as Great by your pairs. Carry the baton? The baton of being considered the best of all time? You should first concentrate on trying to understand what the Baton is.

        Comparing your words, Lewis, with Vettel’s comments about never wanting to compare himself with Schumacher as a true admiration and respect for his childhood “hero” is staggering.

        Your talent is great, probably the best in the field currently. Yet it seems you fail to see what made your hero so inspirational, so outstanding, and what made him truly great.

        I believe we’ll be seeing much more victories of you, and I hope that with them, probably a different understanding of what “emulating Senna” truly means.

        Congratulations on a brilliantly won and dominated World Championship. Did you really need to do that move on Rosberg? Would Senna do that to Berger?

        1. could’nt have said it better myself !
          +1

        2. Would Senna do that to Berger?

          I have absolutely no doubt, yes.

        3. As for his intention to emulate his hero off track, Lewis does spend a lot of time support various charities and organisations. It might be a case of better marketing (or a case of selection bias), but I see him spending more time with disadvantaged children than any other active driver.

          I’m well aware that just spending time with someone is not the same as the huge amount of money Senna left for poor children in his home, but the impression I get is that Lewis “gets it” more than anyone else on the grid at the moment.

          1. Yes, as someone with a child who has special needs, I can tell you that Hamiltons charities do an enormous amount, I am hearing about them on a daily basis. When Senna was doing a huge amount of social work, I didn’t ever hear about any of it, because most of it was being done in countries that I didn’t live in.

        4. @sergio-perez

          , Senna, contrary to Schumacher, for example, was praised by his team mates (excluding Prost, obviously). Be recognised as Great by your pairs

          Many drivers acknowledged Lewis as one of the Greats already. His teammates (Alonso, Kovalinen, Button) already praised him except, of course, Rosberg after last year. Only a group of “F1 fans” still hating him, but then again every public figure has his/her haters group.

          Yet it seems you fail to see what made your hero so inspirational, so outstanding, and what made him truly great.

          Unfortunately, it’s because he died at his prime, at the circuit. There’s a saying you should quit when you on top, just like Schumacher do at 2007. Arguably, his reputation is a bit tarnished by coming back to Mercedes and don’t delivered the expected result of a “legend”, but that’s just means he is human being like the rest of us. Imagine someone at the top of his game, winning championships and suddenly died. People will instantly call him a legend. But, I prefer Hamilton leads a long happy healthy life.

          Did you really need to do that move on Rosberg? Would Senna do that to Berger?

          Definitely!

        5. Nico Parked Lewis on the Grass at the start in Canada last year the funny thing here is that Nico is always agressive when Passing Vettel or Kimi but does the stupid moves against Lewis knowing quite well that Lewis will definitely close that window, I guess has learnt from when Button squeezed him into the wall in Canada 2011

        6. @sergio-perez

          Did you really need to do that move on Rosberg? Would Senna do that to Berger?

          If that’s a serious question you’re either too young to have been following F1 when he was racing, or you have a very selective memory.
          Senna wouldn’t think twice about putting a move like that on his team mate, or any other driver. He regularly put his car in positions that meant his rivals either backed out or crashed, and was one of the most aggressive overtakers of all time.
          Compared to Senna, Lewis is a really fair racer, which is a good thing as any driver that attempted to drive as Senna drove would find themselves in the stewards office at the end of most races.

        7. Would Senna do that to Berger?

          By being a racing driver you are under risk all the time. By being a racing driver means you are racing with other people. And if you no longer go for a gap that exists, you are no longer a racing driver because we are competing, we are competing to win. And the main motivation to all of us is to compete for victory, it’s not to come 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th. I race to win as long as I feel it’s possible. Sometimes you get it wrong? Sure, it’s impossible to get it right all the time. But I race designed to win, as long as I feel I’m doing it right.
          – Interview at the 1990 Australian Grand Prix

          So yes, he would have :)

          1. Lol @raceprouk , That interview was Senna talking to Jackie Stewart when Senna was justifying himself crashing into Prost on purpose into turn 1 Suzuka to thereby win the world championship. Widely agreed nowdays by many racing drivers to be nothing more than excuses and Senna apparately regretted that move for the rest of his career. Hardly a defence for a supposed clean move by lewis now, is it?

            1. I’ll snip out a bit you clearly didn’t bother reading:

              Sometimes you get it wrong? Sure, it’s impossible to get it right all the time.

        8. Senna would have throwed Berger on the grandstands if he needed to.
          Yes, great example for newer generations, “winning at any costs”. Besides, Hamilton does a lot of charity work also.
          Senna was a master on marketing, absolute master. Add to that the horrible period that the country (Brazil) was going through, and of course, the mega talent that he had and the myth was born. As for personality, well…. Believing that his wins were a act of gods will is just plain ridiculous. God hates the others drivers then? His dedication and the way he worked with the team was great though, this could be an example for the newer generations.
          I’m brazilian, for the record.

      3. How on earth can anyone begrudge another on who they feel they should emulate? Who do you people emulate? Who are the the people you look up to in your field of expertise?
        C’mon, lets hear it, and lets see whether you are any better than Lewis. Jeeez! Human beings have serious issues!

        1. How on earth can you begrudge people whom are begrudging people without also begrudging yourself for begrudging others as others are begrudging others which caused you to begrudge them? :-)

          1. First, lets say a few years ago, I was one of Hamilton biggest fans. Here is this kid, incredible talent (a bit like how I feel for Verstappen nowadays), big Senna fan- and I truly believe he is- giving Alonso, the one and only who beat the mighty Schumacher, giving him a run for his money on his rookie year. As a Senna fan, as someone that admires the type of driving talent that Hamilton has, that is similar to Senna’s, it was like a breath of fresh air, someone that could change the status quo, was coming.

            That championship I was, as a motorsport fan, not at all impressed by the internal politics of the Mclaren team and the rivalry between Alonso and Hamilton. It was clear the kid had immense talent, the underdog putting into question the dominant Champion of that period in time. It was a joy to watch. The way that championship ended was a disappointment.

            I was incredibly happy when he won his first world championship. In Interlagos, When Vettel passed him on that corner, I was in a house full of Massa fans who almost acted as they won the world cup. When he crossed the line and was world champion, I made myself heard. The crowd wasn’t pleased

            But something changed on him after this. The stardom, the fact of not having a winning car, I don’t know. With Button as his teammate- and never was particularly a Button fan- I continued to support him. But I think it was during this partnership that Hamilton showed a different side. A side I didn’t particularly like.

            Hamilton was advised and embraced by Rosberg to join the Mercedes team. Honestly, I find it disappointing that their relationship as deteriorated over the years.

            I’ve followed these 2 since they were competing in Formula 3. They have been karting together since kids. If Rosberg was the privileged kid, son of Keke, the truth is, he started his F1 career in a bellow performant Williams, and performed remarkably. Hamilton started it in the best, or second best, car in the field.

            I grew up watching Senna. Yes, I’m not a youngster. And every single time I saw Senna race, he was aggressive, but fair. I picture the great battles with Mansell, for example. You’ll probably argue about that race when he pushed Prost against a straight wall- but it was nowhere close to what Schumacher did a couple of years ago against who, was it Barrichello or Massa?- or what Hamilton did on the last race, which was really putting his teammate off the track. The Prost-Senna collision was a vendetta, well documented on the Senna movie. As someone that lived outside of Europe, it was clear to see, outside of the media bias, the motives. It was an unsportsmanlike move moved by a grudge which he was to regret. “Justice by his own hands”. This obviously doesn’t define the character of Senna.

            Would Senna do that move on Rosberg? Maybe. If they were toe to toe on the championship. Or maybe not, because I don’t recall him doing anything similar to his friend and team mate Gerhard Berger. I felt that move was unnecessary, put his teammate at risk, and honestly for a great racer like him, it would not prove a problem later on in the race.

            Why was Senna considered the greatest of all time? Definitely not because he died at his “supposed” prime, young. This is ridiculous. He was considered it because, beyond the incredible talent that he was, he was also a great Champion off the track, and a brilliant mind. Hamilton is far from this at this point in time, by his actions some on, but more often off the track. Does he has the ingredients to achieve this greatness? Absolutely. But from what he says, it seems like he still doesn’t get what his hero was all about.

            I think some of you who really haven’t experienced that age of formula 1, or when Senna was racing, won’t understand what I mean. And obviously there was a media agenda back then backing other drivers, in Europe, which is understandable.

            Anyway, Hamilton is a Great. There’s no denying this. But carrying the “Senna Baton”? No. Not yet.

    7. Thanks for the birthday shoot out.
      On this day in 86 (my year) Alain Prost won his 2nd world title.
      Every year I watch the calendar to see if there is a race on my day.
      In the space of 3 years, we gad 2 trile world champ. Wow

      1. (I’ll never ever comment from my phone, it looks like I’m a bot making typos!)

    8. Nico is struggling with the new starting procedure, even his ridiculously slow formation laps are not helping.

      1. @jcost The slow formation laps are intentional because of Mercedes new pre-warmed brake procedure.

        1. I know it is, but Nico is taking it to another level and it’s not helping him. Did you see Lewis going that slow in Italy?

          1. Nico was only going slow because of the tricks Lewis pulled on hmi on the formtion lap in Suzuka, where Lewis backed up the pack and dawdled leaving Nico’s car to boil on the grid and go into a lower power setting at the start. I.E sneaky bad teamsmanship :-)

      2. @jcost
        Nico is struggling with being the number 2 driver in the best team.
        He may have looked like a good driver when the cars he was driving weren’t capable of winning, but now he’s in a top team, with a top team mate, he looks very average.
        He’s got a serious case of the Webbers !

        1. lol obviously haven’t been watching qualifying recently. He’s annoying his ‘champion’ teammate enough to make him feel the need to repeatedly run Nico off the track at turn 1 or 2 recently :-)

          1. Lewis isn’t a ‘champion’, he’s the champion.
            As has been said countless times before, they don’t give out prizes for qualifying.
            And if you watch the Russian race again you may spot Nico putting similar moves on Lewis.

            1. ‘Lewis’ isn’t a champion…’ . Agreed. :-)

          2. Do you really believe that?

    9. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
      26th October 2015, 8:22

      Lewis third championship reminds me of 1996. 2015 Lewis to vettel is 1996 Damon to Schumacher. The better car won, but the better driver still got few unexpected wins.

    10. Jenson. Not bad for a number two driver !

    11. Well Nico said Monaco 2014 wasn’t deliberate and there isn’t evidence to firmly and factually prove that it was. I can only see yesterday’s incident going the same way, but with Hamilton getting the support…

      1. There was evidence in Monaco in fact @formula-1: Mark Hughes reported that the team told him the tyre load data showed Rosberg could have made the corner, and also that virtually all the drivers thought it was deliberate.

        Not that the incidents are comparable in the slightest, apart from making me wonder why the team keeps Rosberg.

        1. I’m not enough of an expert to say I’m right but for me the word ‘reported’ doesn’t mean fact. It could be a case of a Chinese whispers, albeit unlikely but possible. And just because other drivers think it was deliberate, only the driver obviously knows if it was. Given that previous radio transmissions show Hamilton to react verbally to contact and running of the track with other drivers/Rosberg – I won’t value Hamilton’s belief of what he believes to be true over what Rosberg believes to have been true in Monaco until there is official unrefutable evidence published in both cases.

          1. Well @formula-1 you’re just creating an unrealistic standard of proof to suit your preference, doncha think? Rosberg can’t prove it was unintentional in Monaco, so why believe that? But we have a respected journo making specific statements about data that shows it was. F1 drivers obviously know what a deliberate off looks like, and they know F1 drivers’ mindsets.

            Anyway this was just making a link where no connection exists. Monaco was a black flag cheat while Austin was a pretty routine claiming of the line from the inside apex to the outside on exit. I’m quite sure it was deliberate. Maybe Hamilton went a touch deeper than he planned, is all. Only Rosberg would ever have expected to pull that move off, because he was only level going in. He needed to brake earlier and cut back, which is what Lewis would have done if the roles had been reversed. It even looks like that was what Lewis was expecting.

            I agree Hamilton gets the support though. They like him.

            1. @lockup It is a hard argument to line. Hamilton can’t prove it was unintentional either, and for me it did look like he could have turned more. And while with the Monaco incident, it looked as bad as it was, it could have been the most honest mistake and the worst possible time.
              But, I think the Hamilton argument is hard to line is as it was at the start of the race, the time when incidents like this can go unpunished. Had it been later in the race, I would be more suspicious that it was dirty driving.

    12. The problem with Nico is that he doesn’t know when to back out, Suzuka happened all over again, in Russia Lewis could have tough it out around turn 2 but Nico will definitely park him off the circuit, in Canada Lewis was forced off the track at turn 1 and since then Lewis doesn’t force the issue, only 2 drivers will be fair with you (Kimi and Button) the rest will squeeze, Pable Montoya said Lewis did what he had to do .

    13. No-one will believe that for Lewis – once again, he didn’t even put the steering lock on. He can’t even say he understeered this time (it was borderline believeable in Suzuka as well).

    14. I would have loved Lewis’ response in the press conference to Rosbergs ‘lewis was too agressive, not cool’ comment to have been ‘…Canada turn 1.’ Then the camera man could have zoomed into Nicos face for some awesome lols.

    15. Mark in Florida
      26th October 2015, 11:35

      I say put Verstappen in Nico seat, I don’t think he would be intimidated by Lewis at all. Lewis would learn some respect for his teammate because Verstappen wouldn’t yield the position to him. Nico has become the new Barricelo, he just doesn’t know it yet.

    16. This is going to be a controversial opinion, but I’m going to throw it out there anyway.

      If the introduction of a standardised customer engine with competitive performance parity drove away the current engine manufacturers, would it actually be a bad thing?

      There are four companies currently manufacturing power units for Fomula 1. Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault, and Honda. Of the four, you can take it as read that Ferrari will remain no matter what, with their works team. That’s a given. Currently, Renault are without a team to supply for next year, as they have been found wanting in the face of the challenge the current rules present. Honda only supply one team, who are really only allied to Honda for two reasons – firstly, because McLaren (rightly?) believe that the only way to win championships in this fomula is by having a manufacturer tie-up, and secondly because Honda are the only company who were willing to step into F1 (a decision I’m sure they’ve questioned more than once over the past few months).

      That leaves Mercedes. If Mercedes decided to leave the sport, it would be a sad thing indeed. But would it also be a bad thing? Currently they are tied with the Brackley squad, and through ensuring that they are the only ones with the resource available to be competitive, they are dominating by virtue of edging out all other competitors. In essence, nobody can beat Mercedes because they have the best power unit, and they’re not willing to share it with any similarly-resourced teams. Whether you agree with that decision or not, you can’t help but admit that it doesn’t exactly improve the sport for the fans.

      If you had a competitive power unit available, which any team could buy, then you eliminate this as a performance variable. So it might mean that Renault, Honda, and potentially even the mighty Mercedes leave. But it would also mean that the likes of McLaren, Red Bull, Torro Rosso, Williams, Sauber, and everyone else not currently enjoying the benefits of ‘full works status’ is in a position to develop a competitive car. It would also be a huge incentive for other teams to enter the sport, with this massive performance barrier lifted.

      In the end, the best way to improve racing is to have as many competitive cars in every race as possible. A standardised customer power unit would seem to offer that. Of course, big names like Mercedes aren’t happy about that, because right now they’re enjoying a position of dominance and power which they want to maintain. But it’s Formula 1, not Formula Mercedes. If the loss of the triple pointed star is the price for having genuinely competitive racing, with close championships contested by drivers from a multitude of teams, then I say it’s a price well worth paying.

      1. You appear to be advocating for a period like when the Cosworth DFV was the best engine around; everybody used it (except Ferrari).

        Come to think of it, that might not necessarily be a bad thing…

        1. @raceprouk That’s exactly what I’m advocating. What value do these power units really bring to F1? They’re amazing showcases of technological achievement, absolutely, but in the end it’s still nothing more than the noisy bit of the car which shoves it along the road. Having the Mercedes PU in F1 is brilliant… for Mercedes.

          I do believe that technological development should be at the heart of Formula 1. But right now we have a situation where there is only one company in the world which produces power units capable of propelling cars to championship victory. And they will only supply one team capable of winning. The Brackley squad benefits immensely from this, but everyone else (including, crucially, us fans) suffers. Even in an ideal situation, there’s probably only one other PU supplier which is going to catch them, and if Ferrari does ever do it, that only means realistically one additional team fighting for victory.

          Imagine a world where competitive power units were available to any team which was prepared to pay for them, with no political or competitive blockers. Sure, Mercedes probably aren’t going to want to carry on competing with a works squad, investing massive sums into developing power units which are no better than an off-the-shelf unit. But so what? F1 survived just fine without a works Mercedes squad, for half a century. Someone would buy the Brackley team. They could still win races and championships. But they’d have competition.

          1. My only concern with having a spec engine is Ferrari; they’ll insist on making their own. And given how F1 views the Scuderia, they’re likely to get their way, and be able to block the introduction of a spec engine. Unless, of course, they were making it. Which they won’t; it’d be far more likely to go to Renault or Cosworth or someone like that.

            1. I wouldn’t necessarily want a spec engine formula. It’s more about having a spec option for those who don’t want to build their own. Ferrari I would have thought, would be behind any changes to the engine formula which allowed them to design and build an engine which was on a par with the best.

          2. I prefer the engines than the aero, yes they are the noisy thing that pushes the car along but I cannot see the airflow on the fiddly bits and from 2010 to 2013 only one team was head and shoulders above the rest with stuff that has more to do with planes than cars. Customer engine would be good as it will stop the little coachbuilders moaning but it would have to be to the same rules as Ferrari, Merc, Honda and Renault build their engines to.

            1. I get what you’re saying. What I mean is, when it comes to the engine, while engines are an important part of F1, realistically it doesn’t really matter whether the power comes from an antimatter powered fusion drive, or a pushrod V8. As long as it makes the power, an engine is still an engine. These current ones are seriusly high tech, very advanced pieces of kit. Incredible technology. But they still fundamentally only do one thing. An F1 car doesn’t really do anything it didn’t do before. It just does it with a bit less fuel. Which is only really important if you’re someone like Mercedes or Renault, trying to flog some cars. To the likes of Williams, it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference.

              I do agree though, in an ideal world any independent engine supplier should be building engines to the same regs as everyone else. That’s what always used to be the case. But the sheer technical challenge of these current engines is such that there are no independents willing or capable of developing them. When the collective resource of McLaren and Honda can’t build a decent solution, that tells you everything you need to know about the scale of the challenge. So either an independent engine would need to be built to different rules, or the rules should be changed to a simpler engine formula.

              As I say, maybe Mercedes wouldn’t like that, as they might not be able to flog so many cars. But at the end of the day I don’t see why my needs as an F1 fan should come secondary to the profits of the Mercedes shareholders. I want to see a grid full of cars which are competitive. Then the racing will improve and we’ll all be raving about how good F1 is, rather than constantly moaning about it.

            2. I don’t think the power unit is as obscure and meaningless as all that @mazdachris. Dilute messages about the technology filter down through the media. And I thought it had been established that Ferrari are pretty much on a par now, but lack downforce?

              We saw in Austin that Renault and Honda can compete with some Merc- and Ferrari-powered cars.

              It just needs time, really. It’s a prototype competition.

              Maybe they should beef up GP2 to be more than a feeder series and give them 900 bhp with a 2.2 V6 turbo, and let them be the ultimate spec series. Qualy on Thursday, 300km race Saturday, or something.

      2. I have several objections to it @mazdachris.

        One of the solutions is going to be the better deal. If BE and Todt make the new “independant” engine better to please Mateschitz and one up the manufacturers, then it will be throwing all the investment by Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault and Honda out of the window. Not a great target.
        If its not a better package, there is no use in having it (see no one being interested in running Cosworth engines towards the end of the V8 period), despite being cheaper.
        In the mean time, it will create a championship with asterixes to every win, podium and time set.

        Then off course there is the money part. I think an very large part of the engine cost the teams are paying right now is for R&D that has already been done. If you bring new engines, you will have to do part of that development anew, bringing cost with it. Is Bernie going to pay for the engine? Or Red Bull?
        In neither case you get a truely independent manufacturer.
        If its Red Bull, we might just change from having Ferrari and Mercedes calling the shots (but Honda and Renault having some say and chance of getting up there too) to having Red Bull calling the shots.
        If its Bernie, well, that will be a nice extra way to keep in power and give us a lovely “show”, we all saw how he already uses everything he can to play the divide and conquer game the last decades.

        And why would you think that forcing large manufacturers to exit F1, ditching their investments would be a lure to new entrants? It will only tell them that if they do a good job, Bernie and Todt will want te grab power back and throw them out sooner rather than later too.

        All in all, its just a game for power over what goes on in F1. If Bernie were interested in cutting cost he wouldn’t be supporting Red Bull who have fought any intitiative to cut costs in recent years. And sustainablility would be far better served by giving all teams a budget that pays for engines, travel, a basic operating budget and money to build the cars. Something Bernie could do all of his own right now.

        Yes, its a mistake that there was not an engine budget build into the regulations (maybe the price going down with the amount of development tokens lowering) right away. But forcing the manufacturers to lose money on the engines is hardly the solution (see Indycar and how they have struggled to find any new entrants to supply the engines) to building a solid “market” to get engines

        1. You raise some interesting points here @bascb, but it probably won’t surprise you to learn that I disagree with most of them.

          I’ll try to address your points below. I’ve paraphrased sum in the interests of keeping this as short as possible.

          One of the solutions is going to be the better deal. If BE and Todt make the new “independant” engine better to please Mateschitz and one up the manufacturers, then it will be throwing all the investment by Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault and Honda out of the window. Not a great target.

          I agree that finding the correct performance level here is critical. It would be outrageous to simply trump all the current entrants, and likewise it needs to be competitive enough to be a worthwhile choice. The FIA will have very detailed information on the performance levels of the current power units. There are other factors to consider too – cars using the ‘spec’ PU will likely need to use more fuel, so there may be other performance criteria which need to be factored into any potential solution. I would say that they should ideally pitch performance levels at a very slightly lower level than the current top PU – currently Mercedes.

          [Then] there is the money part. I think an very large part of the engine cost the teams are paying right now is for R&D that has already been done. If you bring new engines, you will have to do part of that development anew, bringing cost with it.

          This doesn’t need to be the case. The reason for the very high RnD cost is generally down to two factors. The first is the technical complexity of the mandated solution – the recovery systems are extremely high-tech, and before this engine formula was introduced, the technology simply didn’t exist. Technology has had to be designed from the ground up. Secondly, and perhaps most significantly, all of the current PUs are designed to the same very strict regulations, meaning that huge amounts have to be invested into finding relatively small performance improvements.

          Actually, the level of power they are running is not incredibly high. A solution which delivers the same performance doesn’t need to be technologically complex at all. If the design brief is simply to match the current performance levels, they need only come up with a design which delivers that. This can easily be achieved using technology which is already well understood. In fact, it’s quite possible that the likes of Cosworth already have designs which could be adapted to this application with very little development. And being less technically complex will have the added benefit of being reliable.

          Put simply, a PU could be designed and built for a fraction of the cost of the current F1 engines which delivers exactly the same performance. The only trade-off is that they would be using a lot more fuel.

          Why would you think that forcing large manufacturers to exit F1, ditching their investments would be a lure to new entrants?

          Because this would create a situation where new entrants wouldn’t need to invest huge amounts into developing their own power unit, or have to accept whatever second-rate products the four current manufacturers are prepared to provide them. They could focus solely on developing their chassis and aero, knowing that they have a powerful, reliable power unit available to them, which they can build into their budget from the outset. No messing about, no politics, just a decent, off-the-shelf solution which they know will not let them down.

          In the end, automotive manufacturers come and go. They’re only in this game to sell cars. The only one you can rely on as any kind of constant, is Ferrari. Crucially, they’re only really interested in taking part if they’re able to win. Already we have some doubts about whether or not we’ll be seeing all four in F1 next year. Mercedes and Renault had both indicated that they had intended to quit the sport if they hadn’t changed to this engine formula. Their presence doesn’t enhance F1, it stifles it. Yes, by virtue of a structure put in place by Bernie Ecclestone which allows those manufacturers to dictate what other teams can and cannot do. It’s not healthy, it’s not tenable, and we end up with what we have now – season after season dominated by one team; the only team with access to a top spec engine which is also capable of building a competitive car.

          There are teams on the grid capable of building competitive cars, but they aren’t able to do so because the engine manufacturers are dictating who should and shouldn’t be competitive. I would rather lose them, and have a fair environment where everyone has the opportunity to be competitive if they have the skill and the resource to build the car. More competitive cars means closer racing, means closer championship battles. Means we don’t see brilliant drivers like Fernando Alonso pootling around at the back of the grid in a car powered by a dreadful engine which might blow up at any moment.

          Sustainability would be far better served by giving all teams a budget that pays for engines, travel, a basic operating budget and money to build the cars. Something Bernie could do all of his own right now.

          As I say, there are teams on the grid right now which have all the resources they need. The fundamental problem is that realistically, there is only one engine which will power you to victory, and the manufacturer is ensuring that it doesn’t find its way into the back of any car which might beat their preferred entry. A lack of budget is a problem for some teams, sure. Something which could be solved by introducing an engine which is order of magnitude cheaper than those currently on offer. The only way to deliver that is with a spec engine option. And for those teams whose problem is not a lack of budget, but a lack of available power unit options, it also helps them to ensure that they are masters of their own destiny as far as performance is concerned. No manufacturer would be in a position to deliberately sabotage the performance of their rivals. As it should be – fair competition on a level playing field.

          1. Indeed @mazdachris it doesn’t surprise me in the least!

            I understand what you envision there, but I also think that what you mention is miles away from what is really proposed by the FIA and FOM (They just want to threathen Merc and Ferrari by hinting at making that alternative the better deal).

            The point which you did not adress is who is going to pay for that engine to actually come into existance. Even if the cost would not be huge, someone will still have to pay for it. Engine manufacturers will built it, but only if someone is willing to field the bill. Someone who is then going to have power over the engine and what it does, who has it etc., making the point of “fair competition” a moot one, unless you really go the spec engine route.

            1. @bascb Well they’re talking about having an open tender process so I guess it’ll be down to engine manufacturers to suggest their preferred solutions. As I say, there are lots of different racing engine manufacturers out there who would likely have something relatively well designed already on their books which could be adapted. Likely there would be an amount put forward by FOM and the FIA to secure the contract, but it’ll probably also be dependant on a number of potential customers getting signed up right off the bat. I’d have thought that one way or another, they’d be leaning towards a turbocharged solution, and then they could put in place boost limits/fuel flow limits which could be carefully adjusted by the FIA to ensure performance parity. There are also a number of off-the-shelf KERS systems which are well developed already and could be applied to just about any racing engine.

              It’s not insurmountable. As I say, the important part is that it would be about designing a power unit to hit a certain. pre-determined power level. It’s a totally different prospect to developing a power unit within a defined set of rules to be as powerful as possible.

              And let’s remember, if we’re talking about an open tender, there’s no reason why the current manufacturers couldn’t put forward their own proposals. Honda’s IndyCar engine would be a good basis to start from, and with an additional KERS system would be able to generate the kind of power necessary. They’re already geared up to produce them at volume.

              What I would enviion is that the majority of current customer teams would likely opt for the third party system thanks to the massivey reduced cost and the performance parity. Leaving the existing manufacturers (and I think this is an important point here) with a choice – either carry on building their very complex, very expensive engines for their works teams, or finally get together and agree to some common sense rules changes which would see costs brought down and competition brought back to the sport. This is what we desperately need.

            2. The choice you leave them is the same non-choice Bernie gave the smaller teams in regards to signing up to unfavourable conditions or leave the sport @mazdachris.

              Why on earth would Honda want to prove to the world that they don’t know what they are doing by sinking about half a billion into a high-tech, future oriented hybrid engine that might get them close to 50% efficiency and then ditch that after 2 years for a run of the mill solution they already lose money on in the US? I am pretty sure that they would rather pull out of F1 altogether than stomach such an embarresment.

              As for the tender process, who is going to pay for the development? The Indy engines are loss leaders for the current suppliers. They would have to more than double cost to break even and top it off to cover adaptation to different fuel, boost levels and characteristics, and some more to run a KERS system on top.
              Its not going to be all that cheap and unless its a better engine (meaning finding a solution to it needing more fuel) no team is going to be interested – mercedes proved that with offering cheaper “year old” deals not even Manor took up.

    17. @gt-racer put it really nicely.

    18. I don’t want to see the sport become a spec series. The development each race is one of the things I find fascinating. At the moment from a viewer engagement stand point that’s limited to what new tiny piece of aero is brought it. But you still get some interesting things. The Mercedes rear wing for Spa and Monza and the Ferrari floor cheese grater are a couple that catch the eye.

      I think the opening up of engine development is great, I don’t care if it leads to a spending arms race. We still have 4 teams on the grid that can afford to spend. But what I would like to see is that information being available during the show. If the teams have to homologate the engine, the media should be allowed to poor over all of the diagrams and specifications to put together articles for the fans.

      1. Very much agree @philipgb

        I’d like them to stream temperature and gps data for independent sites to make use of, for example.

    19. Personally I would open up the regs so teams could have complete freedom, apart from safety issues. Cars should have to meet stringent safety tests but other than that can use any engine, fuel, tyre, chassis design they please. Cars would all look different, use different engines and would get faster year on year. More engine manufacturers would become involved because they could go in a direction that benefitted their road cars. There would be more independent teams because they could choose cheaper options and be more inventive. Wacky Races – might be fun!

    Comments are closed.