Grosjean hoping for future Ferrari move

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Romain Grosjean is hopeful of a future move to Ferrari.

Comment of the day

Is NASCAR more lucrative for teams than F1?
Gene Haas says it’s easier to make money in NASCAR than F1. JCage is not convinced:

In NASCAR anyone who drives the first lap of a race gets points, and the gap in both points and prize money between first and last is the most charitable in all of sports. That’s why there’s a whole industry in NASCAR called ‘start-and-park’.

I get that he is a businessman first and foremost, but jeez, at least find out about the basics of the sport you’re in before making sweeping declarations about the one you’re about to enter.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Soundscape!

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

It was an important day for Pastor Maldonado five years ago as the recently crowned GP2 champion landed test with HRT and his future team Williams:

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.

75 comments on “Grosjean hoping for future Ferrari move”

  1. What’s going to happen next year when all those Sky subscribers lose their darts and only have F1 with Pirelli tyres to watch, could get messy.

    1. Don’t get deflated @hohum it’s not Pirelli’s fault.

      1. Ho ho ho, @peartree punctures my comment with a dart to the heart of my depression.

        1. @hohum I didn’t knew you were so ultra soft. Be mindful of not stepping over the broken pieces from your heart.

          1. You’ve let me down @peartree .

          2. @hohum I had to make a cool down line.

        2. :-) No need to explode!

    2. @hohum Don’t be so hard on them. They’ll have the option to watch on BBC.

      1. I cancelled my Sky subscription for the end of this season and because I’m moving house. I won’t join again for next year, will watch it some other way.

  2. COTD: I read his quote the other way, that he thinks he has more of a chance to make money in F1:

    1. copy paste fail

      In NASCAR to get any money you have to win. In F1 if you finish tenth or better you get a percentage, so if you finish among the top ten you at least get guaranteed some money. NASCAR doesn’t do that.

    2. I’m very surprised and honored to get a COTD considering I’m relatively new here.

      Agree with @scalextric that Keith’s introductory comment might be mixed up: Haas is saying he thinks it’s easier to make money in F1 than Nascar, which is what I was refuting. I know the guy has better things to worry about (his company), but no one should go into something saying they’ll do a better job and be better able to make money than established teams.

      1. It makes me think of Nissan at LeMans this year … We all saw how they win as planned and announced.

      2. I can see why Haas said he can make easier money in F1 than in NASCAR and I think he probably right. Assuming STR still using Renault, McLaren Honda haven’t fixed their problem, Sauber more and more becoming Manor (lack of fund which leads to lack of “better” engineers and worse car and drivers) and Manor can’t develop good enough chassis even with Mercedes engine, Haas has a chance to finish 7th at WDC. Of course that’s probably best case scenario for them, but he talked about finishing in top ten to get any money and next year he only need to beat just one team to achieve that.

        1. Hmmm, well I would think Haas, having had a team in NASCAR, would know exactly what he gleaned from NASCAR for being there and placing where he did, so I wonder if there is some confusion here about prize money for drivers vs. prize money for teams. So I googled it briefly and read a few articles that have much more info about driver rewards than about team rewards, so I’ll take Haas at his word with respect to team rewards which I think he is talking about, moreso than drivers’ compensation.

    3. I find it funny that commenters think they know better than a consummate businessman who runs the race team.

  3. Grosjean has a better chance of winning the WDC at Haas then at Ferrari with Vettel!

    He would be a great replacement for Kimi, but something tells me that Joos has probably got Max’s foot in the door at Maranello for 2017. If Ferrari are in a championship challenging position in 17, Vettel will win it, and will serve Max as grooming period to be the next super star of the F1.

    1. @jaymenon10 I highly doubt that. Although Max his talent is undeniable he isn’t a GP winner yet. Massa was their last signing who wasn’t a GP winner before entering Ferrari. Before that you’d have to go a long way back too. Red Bull won’t let him go so easy either and I think the chances are bigger he already has a larger foot in a Red Bull car than a Ferrari one. Besides Ferrari want Vettel for at least another 5-6 years and won’t disturb him bringing in a rookie.

      1. @xtwl you don’t have to go a long way back before the next winless Ferrari driver. Massa replaced Barrichello, another guy who was drafted without a single win to his name. And before him it was Eddie Irvine. And before him it was Alesi.

        If anything, Max has much better results, and prospects for the future, than any of those. He lacks the experience, but by 2017, he’ll have as many GP under his belt as Massa had before joining Ferrari.

        I doubt he’ll switch, tho. Not as a 2nd driver.

        1. @fer-no65 Barrichello is 15 years ago. That’s a while, no? What I was pointing out, Ferrari will always go for experience above raw talent if available.

    2. Something tells me that Lewis wants that 2017 Ferrari seat :)

      1. @rvg013, why would Hamilton want to have a seat at Ferrari in 2017? Whilst it is still some way away, you would still expect Mercedes to remain as a strong contender – what benefit would there be in changing to another team?

        1. Driving for Ferrari

          1. @rvg013, I still don’t think that sort of sentimental attitude fits with Hamilton’s current attitude.

            As much as Vettel might play up the emotive aspect of following in Schumacher’s footsteps to Ferrari and talking about the heritage of the team, Vettel’s decision to move seems to have been driven by the sense that he knew Red Bull had peaked and were losing their best designers to other teams. With Ferrari having undergone a major restructuring of its technical department and with Marchionne pumping more money into the team to turn them around, Vettel saw an opportunity to get into a team that was on the up and took it.

            To put it bluntly, I think that Hamilton is more motivated by the idea of “bigger numbers”, as Senna once put it – i.e. being able to put more titles next to his name. Like Vettel, if he were to look to go to Ferrari, it won’t be because of the heritage or the prestige of the team – it will be because that would represent the most competitive team he could drive for.

    3. By 2017, it’s entirely possible that Max will be quicker than Vettel.

      1. Vettel is my favourite but I believe he would have a big fight on his wheels if his teammate were Max V.

        Max is one of those once in a generation drivers who force themselves through from the back. Reminds me of Hamilton and Vettel – when they appeared they showed they were the real thing. ATM Max is still a bit too fond of the crash barrier but he’ll learn.

    4. I think that if Red Bull manage to get themselves back up there, they are a far better bet at winning championships for Max then Ferrari @jaymenon10

    5. I would bet Jos is talking to Toto. I’d bet Bernie is offering stuff to make that happen, and Rosberg’s ‘multi-year’ contract is noticeably vague. Though what they do with him for 2016 if TR disappear I can’t imagine. Manor?

  4. Why would Grosjean wants to go to Ferrari when Hass will share the same powertrain than Ferrari but have a better chassis?

    1. Well the thing Hamilton said was a few weeks ago. So not worthy of a place in the round up.

      I think he said schumi won championships using dodgy methods sometimes.

  5. Really enjoyed the peek into the contracts and Prost docs, now that’s interesting stuff!

    1. @watertank, there are a number of contract documents which have come into the public record, and they make for fascinating reading by demonstrating the power of the tobacco companies. Marlboro in particular were especially influential – you can see how they were instrumental in, for example, Gilles Villeneuve’s one off first race with McLaren in 1977 or Ron Dennis’s takeover of McLaren in the 1980’s, not to mention later deals to bring Senna and Prost to McLaren.

    2. @watertank indeed. In Peter Warr’s book about his time at Lotus, I found the chapter negotiating Senna’s contract with Camel incredibly fascinating. They had to convince so many people in the middle, only for Senna to ask even more money than initially arranged. And then again, their negotiations with Honda and leaving Renault.

      If you have not read that book already, I highly recommend you go and grab it!

  6. Is there a link to the comments Hamilton is alleged to have made about Schumacher? Had a look through recent posts and I haven’t found anything.

    Seems a bit strange to report a denial from Hamilton without first reporting what has allegedly been said, so that we readers can have the chance to make up our own minds.

    1. @red-andy Well the thing Hamilton said was a few weeks ago. So not worthy of a place in the round up.

      I think he said schumi won championships using dodgy methods sometimes.

      Damn double post…

      1. He said it in the past as well. I think when Schumacher made his comeback in 2010.

        Well.. Schumacher did use dodgy methods to win his championships, so I don’t see the purpose in retracting those statements

        1. I don’t think he’s retracting them, just setting the record straight. After all, we all know how bloodthirsty the media is when it comes to stirring up controversy…

          1. So @raceprouk, then what exactly is he “setting the record straight” about? Is he now saying that Schumacher won deservedly in all of those years, and never had an somewhat unfair advantage vs. his teammate and even against the rest of the field?

            To me, its all a bit convulted. Schumacher did take winning by dodgy methods to a whole different level. Hamilton knows it, the whole paddock knows it. And it does take away from those 7 championships somewhat.

          2. Maybe you should read what he wrote for yourself.

        2. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
          8th November 2015, 16:12

          So did Senna & Prost, but Hammy LOVES Senna.

      2. I don’t know enough about 1994 to judge it, but IMO, Schumacher did not deserve 2003. In fact, Schumacher’s 2003 was probably the worst WDC (driving standard wise) in the last 15 years.

        1. can’t remember much wrong with driving standard in 03? but what was iffy was ferrari/bridgestone were well off the pace so michelin had their best tyres taken away.

          That should of been either JPM or Kimi title. Especially JPM he really deserved one for keeping us entertained against michael during those years until Alonso turned up.

          94 was blatant. 97 was blatant but JV saw it coming and actually played to it. 2006 monaco was also dodgy! He had his moments bless him!

          1. @q85, Schumacher did have a few poor races in 2003 – he collided with Trulli in the Malaysian GP and broke his front wing, leaving him in a lowly 6th place, and he also spun out of the Brazilian GP – although half the field also crashed out in the same race due to tyre politics. He didn’t have a great race in Japan either, where he almost managed to blow his chance of taking the title after colliding with Sato.

            Mind you, to be fair to Schumacher, all of the title contenders that year had a few poor races before the controversial tyre changes at the end of the season, so in that sense it is perhaps a little harsh to just single out Schumacher.

          2. but what was iffy was ferrari/bridgestone were well off the pace so michelin had their best tyres taken away.

            Not strictly true as Michelin later admitted they had lost no performance as a result of the actually rather minor changes they were required to make after the rules clarification.

            What hurt them over the final 3 races of 2003 was the weather conditions. The Michelin’s worked best with hotter track temperatures & most of europe went through a heatwave that summer which played into the Michelin runner’s hands.
            The final 3 races were held in cooler temperatures which at Monza (Along with Ferrari having done a ton of testing there prior to the race weekend) equalized performance & at Indy (Where it also rained with Michelin having no decent intermediate tyre) & Suzuka shifted the balance more in favor of the Bridgestones.

            The whole controversy about the Michelin tyres been ‘illegal’ had been brewing for a while, Bridgestone raised the issue a few times but there was never any real proof. What changed after Hungary was that Bridgestone got a lot of images & video that showed without any doubt what the Michelin tyres were doing out on track & they took that evidence to all there partner teams as well as the FIA & FOM.
            Faced with clear evidence that the Michelin tyres were outside of the regulations while out on the track the FIA really had no choice but to react.

          3. No worse than the man who invented dirty racing and to which others learnt the one and only Ayrton dirty Senna. Good riddance to him.

        2. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
          8th November 2015, 16:15

          Lol what?? Schumacher drove well in all of his championship years, but Japan 2003 was a bit “messy” by his high standards I grant you. I reckon you must have forgotten 2007 – Kimi’s championship was I think is the most unworthy in recent times. Or perhaps 2008 when both Hammy & Massa both did their best to lose it! Massa should’ve won it.

          1. @peppermint-lemon,
            Why you think Kimi haven’t deserve 2007 title? He was the best driver of that season, lost 12 points due to car failures while McLaren have had bullet proof reliability. He also was much better under pressure than Hamilton and Alonso. And outperformed team-mate Massa.

          2. @peppermint-lemon
            It’s not just one race. Schumacher was underwhelming for almost half the season in 2003.

            Hit Trulli in Malaysia
            Crashed out in Brazil
            Spun with Montoya in Nurburgring
            Ran off the circuit in Germany, possibly causing puncture.
            Nowhere in Hungary
            The rain came at the perfect time in USA when it was looking really bad for him.
            Tried his best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Brazil

            He had a car more reliable than Williams and faster than McLaren, yet still he nearly threw the WDC away.

        3. He did not deserve a WDC in which he had 6 wins while the 2nd driver had only one?

          1. @afonic
            Ferrari was both faster and more reliable than McLaren. Kimi drove by far the best that season, Schumi just had a better car in the end. JPM and Alonso also drove better than him that year.

  7. To set Hamilton’s quote correct, Lewis said that his championships came from natural talent. He might have been referring to some of Schumacher’s dodgy antics, or he could have been referring (and I believe he was) to Schumacher being more hard working and less reliant on his talent.

    1. Yes, Michael’s wins at Barcelona in ’96 and Monaco in ’97 and his second place whilst stuck in fifth gear in 1994 were based on hard work alone. Talent didn’t come into it.

      I was no fan of Schumacher back in the day, but to talk down his talent is ridiculous. He was a game-changer for F1, like Arsene Wenger was for football management.

      1. Hamilton is many levels below Schumacher on ability and is not worthy to shine his shoes. He is talking an awful lot but it will make it extra funny when he starts to fall apart as he always seems to every so often.

      2. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
        8th November 2015, 20:39

        Also Hungary & Spa 1998 were masterful displays (ignoring Coulthard’s blatant lift-off on the racing line at Spa) as was Sepang 1999.

    2. It doesn’t really matter. He’s wrong either way.

      Mercedes won him the championship, not his all-conquering talent.
      All he did was beat Rosberg twice. Rosberg is not the benchmark.

      And as much as people might dislike Schumacher, he was the best in ’94 by a considerable margin. As for ’03, Ferrari used an effective tactic. Something all teams try to do every single year to help their campaign. Should we forget Mercedes’ Pirelli tyre test which helped them greatly in solving their tyre issues from 2013? Surely that isn’t considered fair play.

      1. Mercedes won him the championship, not his all-conquering talent.

        In 2008?

        And let’s not forget 2002 and 2003, where Ferrari were so dominant they started the season with the car from the previous year and still won races with ease.

        1. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
          8th November 2015, 16:16

          2008 was Massa’s championship, the wrong man won.

          1. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
            8th November 2015, 21:07

            @raceprouk Lol well done with your “diddums” reply. You’ve excelled yourself. Be proud.

          2. Be proud.

            OK then.

        2. In 2008 he beat Kovalainen and Massa…

          Are they the benchmark?

      2. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
        8th November 2015, 16:20

        Schumacher was the best from 1992-2006 inclusive, not just 1994. He was also immense on his come back to a very different F1 after 3-years out, and after breaking his neck during a motorcycle race crash, whilst in his 40s.

      3. @Baron, the thing is, the changes that Pirelli made to the construction of the tyre following the tyre test by Mercedes in 2013 didn’t help them.

        Once the details of the changes in tyre construction were announced, there were quite a few parties predicting that the increase in structural stiffness of the tyre sidewall would hurt Mercedes. In fact, Keith later analysed the data from the races after the test and demonstrated that Mercedes ended up becoming less competitive after that test session, with the biggest beneficiaries being Sauber and McLaren – both parties having originally designed their cars on the assumption that the tyre wall would be stiffer than it turned out to be.

        1. The 2013 Mercedes was already built. The 2014 Mercedes was in development.

          Mercedes went from a tyre munching machine that was only quick enough for pole in 2013 to one of the most dominant cars ever seen in F1 in 2014. You bet your behind that that test helped Mercedes.

      4. And that same Rosberg beat the very same Schumacher in the same Mercedes team.

        1. The same Schumacher?


    3. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
      8th November 2015, 16:23

      Id say Schumacher was higher natural talent than Hamilton, then an almost limitless work ethic just made it that much harder on others. The kart races he entered in whilst in F1 / after his retirement are testament to that natural ability. Hamilton thinks he is better than he really is I believe.

      1. The vainglory of Hamilton has always been disgraceful, nothing really new with the comment about Schumacher.

  8. I do find it a bit odd Grosjean effectively telling his new team they are a stepping stone for him before he’s even said hello. I guess there’s maybe merit about being so open about it, but not sure I’d do the same.

    1. I think RG’s assertion that all drivers aspire to drive for Ferrari one day, which we have heard many times before from many sources, exonerates him from sounding like he’s only at Haas because…

      1. Selfish disloyal drivers seems to be the type most teams desires. I see no problem for Grosjean in that regard. (Not that Grosjean necessarily meant to be disloyal).

    2. If it means that RoGro will give his all for Haas, it should be good news for them and Haas would love to have his drivers do the same always.

  9. Zandvoort?
    It needs at least 20 million to get updated for F1. Then 20 million per year for five years. 20000 visitors lead to major, major trafficjams, let alone 50000 or more! There are always problems with “environment” (sound). The track is boring, even in lower formulae.

    Except for Max, there’s not a single worthwhile reason to get F1 to Zandvoort.

    I don’t think these quotes are political – I am from this country – I think it’s just Total ignorance and stupidity of the circuit owner.

    1. Assen had all that. Shame it isn’t suited for F1 (or autosport in general).

  10. I think, this is not too good idea…

Comments are closed.