Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Yas Marina, 2015

“I really want to go to Mars” – Hamilton

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Lewis Hamilton reveals a surprising goal for the future.

Social media

Comment of the day

Lots of reflections yesterday on Pastor Maldonado’s chequered F1 record:

It’s really weird to see an F1 driver with so many infractions unrelated to racing (jump starts, pit lane speeding, etc…). But what amaizes me the most is that he never says anything even close to admitting a mistake.

Saying the stewards treat him differently after you went 30 times in front of them to explain a tangle with another driver is so short sighted it’s beyond belief. How can you really pretend them to act the same as with the others if you’re a regular every weekend?!

It’s sad because the guy is certainly fast, but there has never been a driver better positioned for the “fast but reckless” motto. In that 2012 Williams he should’ve at least scored four more podiums.
@fer-no65

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Dave!

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

Seven years ago today Ron Dennis stepped back from control of the McLaren F1 team, handing it over to Martin Whitmarsh. He retook control exactly five years later, but the team endured its worst season for 35 years last season.

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

  • 127 comments on ““I really want to go to Mars” – Hamilton”

      1. and don’t forget to bring along your studio…

      2. You never say that to a depressed mind.

        1. Hamilton-bashing is getting very old, none of you know his exact situation so none of you should be passing judgment. I guarantee every single one of you wouldn’t accept it the other way round.

          1. Well, when he says something incredibly stupid and childish (every other week or so) and people react to it, it’s not ‘Hamilton-bashing that is getting old’.
            It’s just Hamilton saying incredibly stupid and childlish tings (every other week or so).

            1. So you’re defending the Hamilton bashing by bashing Hamilton. Classy.

      3. I’m sure his dream of three world titles seemed unlikely at one time, now he’s dreaming of going to Mars, well good luck to him with that. If its a bit tongue it cheek… well it made me smile so good stuff.

        I never liked him that much before this comment, but I’m liking him more. Give me an ambitious dreamer over a boring pragmatist any day.

      4. I’ll help him pack up. Why such an insanely good driver needs to be such a useless personality?! what a shame

        1. What a nasty measly comment

      5. He would, but they’ve yet to find a way to fit his gigantic cloud of smugness into a cramped rocket.

    1. Lewis’ interviews are getting more and more embarrassing…

      1. @jmc200 For who? If you actually read the interview you’d have seen that he saw The Martian, liked it and joked about going to Mars. Honestly I’m more embarrassed for the people who flip out every time Lewis speaks his mind…

        1. I did read it, I just thought the ‘hot chick’ quote was pretty childish.

          1. My main take from interviews like this in off season is that racing drivers go a bit weird without a car to drive.

          2. Maybe to detract that he’s gay lol

        2. Well said Ciaran.

          I cringe when i see headlines like this, not because of what Lewis has said, because i know full well even without reading the article that it would have been a kind of throw-away comment relating to something like a recent film, or a response to a question from the media about some Mars thing in the news, or something.

          1. N….I use to cringe, but not anymore. I realize that it just doesn’t matter whatever Lewis might say, because he will always be criticized, and it just drives his detractors and haters off their rails.

          2. Exactly. It’s how click-bait linking works, but it’s disappointing all the same. Besides, whenever Mars comes up, especially in the context of a film about going there, why would there not be at least one guy brazenly declaring he would want to go? It’s all in good fun.

            What, in response to declaring he could not come back from such a trip, would you like to have had him say to be thoroughly impressed? That he would finally have time to read the collected works of Geoffrey Chaucer, that he would bring a Teach Yourself Japanese handbook? Please.

      2. It is embarrassing reading celebrity articles about someone you don’t like. We’re not judging you though man, even I’ve been guilty of clicking a vacuous celebrity gossip link in the past. Just own it man.

        1. Nice try to discredit his assesement of the situation. He’s right and you know it. But at least you made an effort. Thumbs up

          1. There was a survey in the US that showed that people who disliked a particular radio show (Howard Stern in that example) listened to an average of 1 hour more per week than people who liked it.

            …Just saying :]

    2. If he is just joking, it’s ok. If he really wants to do it, congratulations to him. But I just hope is not any kind of white powder getting into his blood for hanging out so much with Hollywood “glamourous” scum.

      1. It’s quite conceivable that in his life time it’s going to be possible for the super rich to go. And it’s also quite conceivable he’s going to be a billionaire come that day.

    3. What a great shame for humanity if Lewis is the one we send to Mars.

      1. COTD to this man right here ^

      2. Let me guess: you also have a little voodoo doll of the man that you stick pins in so he suffers.

        What are you going to criticise next, hm? His choice of breakfast cereal? The colour of his underwear? Or maybe which foot he puts a shoe on first?

        1. Are you OK? How is he wrong? We are sending people to Mars and we are sending Lewis Hamilton of all people. So that makes sense to you…

          1. We are sending people to Mars

            Not for a good few decades yet.

            we are sending Lewis Hamilton of all people

            Even if he volunteers, he won’t be sent; trained astronauts will be sent.

            1. He has time then to become an astronaut. He will be even richer by then so will space exploration become like F1, talent is not everything and we could have pay astronauts.

            2. When he’s in his 60s? No space agency would take the risk, not without some major advances in launch and life support technology, and some form of artificial or simulated gravity.

            3. Surely no space agency has ever launched a 77 year old man into space…

        2. Wow @raceprouk.

          What are you going to criticise next, hm?

          Coming from someone who lives to pick apart peoples forum posts and who criticizes everyone for the most petty shyte, you’re not one to talk.

          1. I take it therefore that you approve of all this Hamilton bashing. Which, as far as I’m concerned, makes you just as bad as them.

            1. No One Better (@)
              17th January 2016, 17:57

              RaceProUK, you’re like a crazy Libertarian who can’t take a stand for one side or the other.

              I’m starting to think your account was created just for playing devils advocate. All you seem to do is exactly what Johannes said.

              You criticize people for Hamilton, DRS, Engine, or Pirelli bashing. Then when its pointed out to you that stories and articles are carefully selected and presented in a way to draw out those negative responses in people, you criticize them for pointing out what seems rather obvious. You can’t have it both ways.

      3. Yep. It’d be a great shame. Our world is a much better place with him on it. I recommend we send you.

    4. If Lewis wants to go to Mars he could always play Doom via a VR headset :P

      Although I suspect that will be a bit less tranquil than he’s like with the demons & such.

    5. Noise level. What the %$£*$%^ does a 14%, wastegate closed, or 25%, wastegate open, increase in noise level mean, without correct units of measurement.

      Sound is measured in DB. The pre 2014 levels were 145dB and the 2014 level was 134db. Most people require the level to be at least 2dB different to notice a change. I don’t know the 2015 level but as it was just noticeably louder then that would suggest 136 or 137dB.

      Therefore if Symonds is talking about the difference between 2015 and 2016 then the 14% increase will not be noticeable, and the 25% increase might just be noticeable by the average punter.

      All that can be said is that they will probably be noticeably noisier that the original 2014 engines by all people.

      Refuelling. We don’t need refuelling, if they want to do something in the pit lane. Reduce the numbers allowed to work in the pit lane, so more team mistakes are more likely.

      Tyre Strategy. As noted by others, different strategies by the teams will only occur in the first few races until the teams have worked out what the optimum choices are. After that they will be standardised.

      1. Well, dang…

        How do we do, 25% is almost 1db increase… 1000% would be extra 10db,

        Or they they meant 25% more db?

        Probably that. And we would notice that big time.

      2. That article was a bit fluffy on detail, there was a better one a few weeks back on Motorsport-total. They explained that that the cars would be louder (I don’t recall them giving exact values) but they did mention that the exhausts will produce a higher pitched sound. So we should see increased dB and a greater increase in dB(A)

        I’m looking forward to testing to actually hear the difference.

      3. DB are also not linear so the difference between 135 and 145 is far more than the difference between 10 and 20?

        1. Your correct that dB are not linear they are on a logarithm base 10 scale, and it is a relative based system. i.e. x dB = 10 log power1/power2. So a 10dB difference is always the same. In power terms a +10dB change is 10 times greater and a +20dB change is 100 times greater.

          If you want to make it relative to a specific level then it gets suffix, in the case with noise dBA. In electronics, most common is dBm referenced to 1mW (0.775V into 600 ohm load) or dBW reference to a Watt. The -3dB points for a HiFi amplifier are the half power points at the low and high frequency ends of the bandwidth. (from Log 2 = 0.301)

    6. Personally, I think Hamilton is fantastic. He’s one of the only drivers with any public charisma. He’s a 70s racing hero embracing glamour and style in the new age, while the rest are private bores. And he has the results to back it up.

      1. I agree, maybe just maybe and hopefully his “celebrity” attitude and popularity will help Formula1 got new audiences even if they just want too see lewis LOL but yeah at least new viewer for now XD

      2. Public charisma? Posting endless pictures of yourself on Twitface and the other social media networks does not mean he’s charismatic. He may be superb on the track but when he’s interviewed, he’s not particularly interesting. Compare with Button and Vettel, for example.

        Hamilton is a very 21st-century racing driver. He’s very good at the social media thing, for example, and he likes hanging around with musicians and so-called “stars” like the Kardashians. I’m not sure there were many drivers back in the 1970s who had their car’s number tattooed behind one ear.

        1. Mark Mitchenall
          18th January 2016, 4:45

          Tattooed behind his ear? I’d say that’s a weird place to have a tattoo of something you can’t remember, but then, if it’s backwards, I guess it’s so that his barber shows it to him daily

    7. refueling, no, no, no, no!

      just thinking about the prospect of the racing been worse makes me sad, if it is brought back i shall cry as we were finally rid of it after 14 years of it destroying the racing.

    8. On Brundle tweet.

      GF asked me today, why are there no female f1 drivers..

      How does one answer that… Skinny short dudes can do the job, but not a woman?

      1. @jureo you can tell her that a woman possibly *could* do the job (and has done it ocasionally before) but that it’s far more *likely* for a man to do it – not because of sexism but mostly because of evolutionary biology.

        1. You just refer you GF to the Wikipedia of Maria devilota and she can figure out the results of giving a woman a f1, car even on a flat airfield……

          1. By that logic, I don’t want to know what relation you (jason) see between no French Champions since 1993 and the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix…

          2. Like school on sundays; no class.

          3. @Jason: Maybe we can send you to Mars

      2. You could answer with something like:

        “There are specific requirements, written into the rules, that have to be met before someone is allowed to do F1. No woman has met those requirements since 1992. It should be possible as women have raced and scored top-six positions in F1 before then. Nobody knows exactly why, but many people are trying very hard to get a woman into F1 on merit.”

        If your girlfriend wishes to know more about the subject, you could tell her about some of the upcoming female drivers trying to reach F1, or some of the theories about why women aren’t coming through (mentioning that the proportion of women in racing drops dramatically in the latter years of karting and the kart-to-car transition, for reasons involving sponsorship, over-scrutiny and societal pressure, is likely to work better than claiming biological causes, especially given who you are trying to convince!)

      3. Not enough women are racing in motorsport due to gender stereotypes. It’s a shame but pretty simple.

        1. Maybe but also why are there no Indian premier league footballers, white 100m champions or more on point 60 year olds in F1. Is the latter point because F1 is ageist?

      4. Or simply because motor racing attracts more men in younger category and the ratio is such that it is unlikely for women to reach F1.
        It would be fun to compute the probability to have a F1 driver based only on registered number of driver. I am pretty sure it will be low.

        1. I tried to explain even Vandoorn cannot get in to F1, so its really hard.

          Then I explained there are very few female racers in general and occassionally some make it to F1 just none currently.

          Kind of like not long ago there were very few women in science… Now they are allover the place.

          Some day we can expect same in F1, but judging by lower cstegories and rate of new drivers comming in to F1… For a long time.

          1. Maybe Vandoorne is a woman and thats why she cannot get into F1?

      5. A better question might be “Why were so few girls karting in 1995?”

        Many professional racers begin their apprenticeships as children. Certainly that’s the case in F1.

      6. Nobody who has tried is good enough, that’s about all there is to it. The same reason there aren’t and have never been any Chinese drivers in F1.

        The desire and ability to get involved is the most important. There are thousands of guys trying to get into F1, almost all of them fail to reach their goal. Less women participate in the junior categories, thus making it even more unlikely that one will reach F1.

        There are no doubt women and men who would be better drivers than Felipe Massa or even Fernando Alonso, but who simply never got involved and are happily working in hospitals, schools, other sports, you mention it.

        1. Lol, but not many. Infact there might not be a single woman in the world better, than Alonso at driving an f1 car.

          I showed her, all your wonderus comments. And she remarked.. F1 is booring anyway, why would a woman want to drive in circles all her life, just to get to F1.

    9. What’s next? Top Roundup billing for something like “Lewis: I love pepsi” or “Lewis: I’m not hungry”? Where does one draw the line?

      1. You wonder where and when it’s gonna stop.
        The aim as always, is make the guy look like a loose canon while ignoring that every single one of us say whatever we like, when we like, crack jokes, make small talk and so on. But how dare Hamilton say anything like I would like to go to Mars with a hot chic after seeing the Martian.

        If I went through the comments of every single driver in F1, there would be multiple quotes to make headlines such as those Hamilton is usually accused of. Question is, do I need to be that picky?

        1. Hmm honestly he’s pretty good at making himself look like a loose cannon quite a lot don’t you think?

          1. @MartinH I beg to disagree with you. Personally I think its the media that is constantly trying to make him look like a ‘loose cannon’, by printing every little thing he says or does, and much of it totally out of context. And then the armchair commentators on forums like this, pick up the bait and run with it. Fact is, Hamilton is a multi world champion and a super-star celebrity, who cannot be faulted for not excelling at what he is paid to do. At the end of the day, I can assure you it is Lewis Hamilton who is having the last laugh!

    10. So Lewis wants to go to mars? Can we not send bernie instead? Actually he would want a race there, and probably call it the european grand prix!!!

      1. He could always have a GP in Europa. Then it’s be a proper European Grand Prix.

        1. “All these worlds are yours except Europe. Attempt no landings there.

          ..

          1. Damn phone, autocorrecting Europa to Europe…

      2. I don’t think Bernie will live long enough to go to Mars, though I could well imagine a successor trying to attract Lewis and other rich racers with some sort of “F1 Masters” series…

    11. Why is refuelling any worse than artificially degrading tyres?

      If it was allowed back (and fuel flows weren’t regulated), it might just raise a whole different set of possibilities. Like some cars going like crazy out front but having to put way more than others using better fuel consumption.

      Mind you it would only last for about 3 races and the bowfins would all work out the best “strategy” and they’d all be the same unless the PU’s couldn’t be altered to handle the higher flows all that quicly.

      Could lead to some interesting technical developments in PU’s though.

      1. Fuel flow limits mean it is pretty pointless. It is a horrible idea as it keeps everyone 20 or 30 seconds apart with the promise all is equal and wheel to wheel for the last 10 laps but due to other variables that seldom happened. To me it is no worse than degrading tyres but 2 wrongs do not make a right.

    12. So you take a quote from a driver that is a joke, that is out of context, and is nothing to do with F1, and then stick it in the article title for ultimate click bait value.

      Congrats, I guess.

      1. altitude2k, there have been an increasing number of complaints from posters who feel that Keith has deceived them in the way that he chooses the quotes from those articles – and, bluntly, I have to agree that his use of quotes sometimes feels rather misleading.

      2. I really don’t understand what you’re objecting to. Of course it’s a lighthearted quote from Hamilton – I laughed at it myself because it’s obviously absurd. So why not share it?

        1. It’s the Lewis is the TDG brigade, what do you expect? You can’t say things like that about his blessedness!!!

          1. I kinda wish he was really interested in the topic. So many people are missing out. Humanity going to Mars will very likely be the pinnacle of human achievement when it happens.

            Nice to have him in good spirits though.

            1. Well, Hamilton did seem to be genuinly impressed with the Martian, so at least he might have pondered the idea for a while.

              I found it a nice and memorable thing to say, to lighten up the interview and make a bit of fun. Personally I a have a different taste in fashion than Hamilton has. But its great to see a driver expressing himself and coming over as a caring and fun person in a magazine that comes within reach of people who would normally not even think about F1 existing

          2. MartinH, I couldn’t care less for Hamilton – what annoys me more is the fact that Keith’s attitude seems to be moving away from trying to inform, and instead trying to inflame, the posters here.

            It’s a similar attitude with the “Comments of the day” – I’ve seen an increasing number of plainly wrong comments that Keith quite happily posts up as “Comments of the day”, with seemingly an emphasis more on what will attract attention rather than what is actually right.

            1. So what you’re saying is Keith should hide the truth because you don’t like it.

            2. I think you are wrong.

              No matter the context, the sentence I really want to go to mars is always going to be interesting from a top athlete. Whether they are serious or joking, whether it’s vanity or genuine interest. I can’t see a way how it isn’t a news worthy comment. Especially during off season.

            3. @raceprouk, I am saying the exact opposite – I am saying that we should expect to see what is truthful, regardless of whether we like to hear it or not, not what is most sensational or what best fits with our personal opinions.

              There is a recent example that annoyed me, where Keith chose to promote a comment criticising Kvyat on the basis that he wouldn’t have passed the current superlicence criteria and claiming he had no top 3 finishes in his junior career.

              Both claims were demonstrably wrong – Kvyat would comfortably pass the current requirements for a superlicence, and Kvyat has also finished in the top 3 in multiple series over multiple years – and I pointed those facts out quite clearly to the poster who made those claims.

              However, thanks to the fact that the original incorrect comment was promoted, there are now posters here who wrongly believe and have criticised Kvyat on the basis of a completely wrong statement. He may have his faults, as all drivers do, but criticise him for something that is at least accurate, not something that has no basis in reality.

            4. If I recall, your ‘proof’ was deconstructed and shown to be false.

        2. Lewis is like the pope… Nice and fun, but it is impolite to laugh at him.

        3. There is no laughing in Formula 1!

        4. You can’t pretend it wasn’t a deliberate attempt to fan flames, or be naive enough to believe that it wouldn’t. There were plenty more worthy tidbits in there than the one you chose to put as the title.

          1. I’m not pretending anything, I told you the truth.

            Your point of view appears to be ‘you shouldn’t have used it because some people won’t like it’. I assure you, having run F1 Fanatic for 11 years I am quite certain there is nothing I can put in a headline which some people – usually the dreary types who hide behind anonymous names and take things far too seriously – won’t object to. So I do what any sensible person would: I ignore them.

            1. No One Better (@)
              16th January 2016, 20:59

              Your readers have caught onto you Keith. You are having to justify your click bait tactics every week. Question now is how will you proceed? Will this be a respectable site for F1 fanatics or will you continue pandering to Hamilton, Pirelli, DRS, Bernie and “power unit” haters because its so easy to rile them up?

            2. Hey hey hey, I object, I’m clearly dreary but never even think to hide it!

              @noonebetter
              His point was, you can’t not upset people on the internet. Like yourself for instance. You seem to think it’s a big clicks conspiracy. It would be impossible to convince you otherwise from that point.

        5. There is nothing wrong with reporting it but out of interest why was it given a headline title ahead of more technical F1 news in the article which is more on point?

          1. That’s a fair question. Certainly if there had been an obviously stronger news story I would have opted for that. But it’s the off-season and the endless run of ‘we might change this rule’-type stories gets a bit tedious after a while. As I say, this put a smile on my face and I thought a few others might appreciate it!

            1. Thank you for the reply. That is clear enough and makes sense so I am content (I was before but thought I ‘d ask as many seem to get emotional about Lewis going to Mars)

            2. I certainly did appreciate it @keithcollantine. It brought a smile to my face just as it did for you. A nice line from Hamilton.
              Not to be taken too seriously (that is even clear when reading the interview) but a good comment to lighten up an interview or indeed a round up of F1 (and associated) news

    13. Re COTD: I totally agree with it. Gosh, I must sound like an old record: When you drive in F1 you should display the level of skill expected in F1, and unfortunately Maldonado doesn’t display that level of skill. As far as I can tell he has the skills required, he just chooses not to use them. I don’t know why his employer accepts the number of retirements he has had. Unfortunately for him, if the rumours of PDVSA’s sponsorship ceasing become reality, and it is true that his seat is associated with their sponsorship, then he shouldn’t be surprised if his 2015 record does come back to haunt him, and if it does then he can only blame himself.

    14. I think I’ll have a little bitch about the pope, since quite a few of us seem to be feeling a bit bitchy this morning. Jean Todt has just asked him to pray for Michael. So clearly for the last TWO years Jean hasn’t thought to ask, and Pope Francis hasn’t been bothering. And as for God, the implications don’t bear thinking about.

      1. @lockup

        It should also be noted that studies have shown that people who are being prayed for and who are aware of it actually do worse in their recoveries than those who are just left alone. It is a kind of ‘performance anxiety’, apparently…..

      2. It’s absurd, to ask someone to do effectively nothing to help someone who needs help. Either thinking it will actually help, or, alternatively, knowing it will not but doing it anyway because other completely unrelated people might like it.

        Frankly, it sums up the FIA for me. Ineffectual people doing ineffectual things to fix actual problems.

        Why can’t he just donate to the hospital where Michael went or something?

    15. Wait. So Marciello is officially out of the FDA after much speculation, but Charles Leclerc isn’t in? As if their young driver program wasn’t weak enough, Ferrari have sacked the only F1-eligible of their drivers. Of course that isn’t a problem when you can snatch drivers like Vettel from other teams once they’ve grown them up… though if they could do that before those same drivers have won four championships for others, that’d be great!

      1. Their driver program has been a bit of a mess more or less since they started it, hasn’t it @fixy?

        1. It has been pointless. They have a rule about only having experienced drivers in the team so they will always take a world champion and pay the money rather than promote someone from their young driver programme although Bianchi was supposed to replace Kimi this year but when push came to shove I wonder whether that would actually of happened?

    16. This is the best headline that I have ever seen on F1 Fanatic. I think he might get there before all F1 teams agree on significant spending cuts.

    17. Sooo, on face of it all. How do we generate more overtaking?

      How about doubling horsepower?

      As Gerhard Berger suggested, in 80’s they had 1300-1400 hp and it was like driving a cannoball, engines failed, gearboxes failed… etc.

      I am not saying it is possible in 2016 for F1 teams to develop engines and gearboxes that tend to fail a lot…

      But what I am saying is.. lets look at some math.

      we have right now what 850 bhp according to Bergers interview. That power is reached soon after 9500 RPM when fuel flow limit is reached. Should rules allow for 150l/h fuel flow limit… we would get maximum fuel flow later and with much more power, how much more? Lets say 50% … which is 1200bhp+ at around 14500 RPM? Maybe teams would sometimes use more than 12000 RPM.. maybe even all the way to 15000RPM limit. More RPM’s also mean more sound, more fuel more bang, more noise.

      That makes many many corners no longer flat, say Eau Rouge is now flat, but with 1250 bhp it wouldnt be. No way. Drivers would have to control throttle more… more control gives more opportunity for mistakes, more opportunity for powerslide savants on the grid to master it.

      But it also means something else… and here is my biggest point. When you have 1200 bhp at your disposal you cannot use all of it all the time. And all of a sudden engine that might be 100 bhp down on ultimate power is no longer 15% worse coming out of a corner. Only after majority of acceleration is done only then power takes more effect.

      Offcorse this power would be used sparingly, but when overtake is in order… boom pump up fuel flow and overtake. A way better and more natural “DRS”. There would still be 100l of fuel avaliable per race. so given most races are 50%+ full throttle they could not use all the power all the time. That in itself creates overtaking opportunities. Kinda like… 1980’s.. incidentally best time in F1’s racing history for overtaking.

      1. The power that was available in qualifying mode in the 1980s is completely irellevant to overtaking @jureo, unless you want to bet on cars qualifying with a super powered engine and then being attacked and passed during the race when they run with only about half that power (a bit like a reversed grid kind of mechanic).

        To give more opportunity for overtaking they would have to cut down on grip for cornering. That way the cars need somewhat longer braking zones, giving more scope to have a go. And less reliability (even going back to about the level of the 1990s) would certainly mix things up considerably too.

        1. Manor already practice low grip and are overtaken all the time. It’s not that thrilling though.

      2. I have said this to you before Jureo – while I admire your enthusiasm, you are clearly no engineer and have not bothered to do some research as I suggested previously.

        You cannot just increase fuel flow and hey presto the engine can withstand double the horsepower.

        The whole car as well as the engine/PU would have to be redesigned and it could not be done to other safety and cost based restrictions within the regulations.

        Try looking up the difference between torque and power. If you have a car – torque is the feeling you get when accelerating from lower RPM – max power is the useless bit somewhere around the red line for a few seconds.

        Then see how electric motors provide instant torque from 0 rpm unlike Petrol engines and you can start to see the issues. Things would be torn apart due to the extra electrical power and torque (as to double power the regulations would have to specify more electrical energy release) Add to that there is a finite amount of power related to the petrol component and you will see extra fuel will not necessarily provide extra power at the rate you assume.

        All F1 as indeed is all racing formulas is built to a minimum weight as weight = slower – including the engines. This is an almost fanatical process and therefore all aspects of an F1 car are built to (just) withstand the forces present at the current power and speed.

        1. I deliberately ignored these issues. Such engine would generate way more heat aswell and would have to be greatly redesigned… But that being said. Engines are by far mostly fuel flow limited. That is my understanding. I do not claim to be an engine engineer.

          As a physicist I try to use rule of thumb to judge ideas if they are atleast viable over the thumb from physics perspective. Should it fail there, then engineering has no chance. But if physics works out… then its just an issue of engineering.

          And as such what i’m thinking. Tires have limited grip… (pretty obvious with Pirelis) More power, more time cars drive at tire limits, not at full power limits.

          Why is power more important than torque? You are right it isnt. But F1 cars spend majority of their lap when on full throttle around RPM where maximum power is generated. In today’s F1 engines, peek power is generated FAR from redline, due to fuel flow limit. Engines peek out way sooner but also, peak power is generated in a wide band.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aohd9vrrWpo

          Exhibit here Lewis Hamilton 2015 SPA pole, He tends to shift at around 11500 RPM… So peak engine performance is from 10000-11500. That’s where he keeps his RPM.

          Also interesting with these 900 German horses… he cannot go full throttle up to 150 kph after first corner. Imagine if he had more power? For sure even longer time on partial throttle.

          WEC KERS is primitive by F1 standards. F1 currently has power avaliable seamlessly… in WEC its more of an on off switch, kind of like old F1 KERS.

          What I argue for is more power, that is one of the easiest things to change on a car. While I agree fully that would change requirements on Aero, on Tires, on Gearboxes, on Suspension… everywhere. But it would make cars harder to drive to the benefit of racing. It is an engineering challange, but F1 cannot be seen to have less power than WEC cars.

          And despite having way better hybrid units, why are WEC considered most inovative series? Because there is more horsepower included. Even if its just a tiny button that gives them 400 extra comming down the straight.

          F1 with even more torque and power, would generate far more difficult acceleration phases of the lap. If now Hamilton struggled to put power down up to 150-170kph, then he would do so up to 200-210, when aero would provide extra grip. That all gives more room for mistakes and overtaking.

          It also gives back F1 headline grabbing figures that it needs.

          Disclaimer for engineering types. Yes getting more power is not as easy as turning up fuel flow. A lot of work has to be redone, reconfigured. But what is alternative? Renault already lacks ideas on how to catch up to Mercedes. I know I oversimplify things, but my post was about an idea, a discussion of concept – Bring more power… what would it do.

        2. Torque can not be felt you only ever feel horse power. Torque figures can only be extrapolated from the horse power and engine speed figures. Torque is twisting power, horse power is a composite of torque and engine speed so as the engine is spinning it is power not torque you feel. When people feel a lot of power at low revs they incorrectly refer to this as torque when what they are feeling is low down horse power which is as a result of torque having a greater portion of the horse power computation than engine speed but it is still none the less Horse power you are feeling.

      3. @jureo The turbo’s of the 80s may well have had 1,000-1,300bhp available for 1-2 laps at a time in qualifying but in the races with the boost levels turned down for fuel usage/reliability reasons they were producing no more than 650-750bhp.

        we have right now what 850 bhp according to Bergers interview.

        The Renault is around that 850bhp figure but the Ferrari is around 890bhp & the Mercedes is said to be around 900bhp (There 2016 power unit may be above 900).

        I would also argue that the belief that just adding more power would make the cars harder to drive & improve overtaking is also not strictly accurate as there is more that goes into that than power output alone.
        In the 1980’s for example the turbo’s were more of a challenge at full boost not simply because of the power output but because of the way the power was delivered. Those engines suffered from a lot of turbo lag & in the early 80s especially at full boost they were often described as been like a switch where you either had no power or full power & it was this rather than the peak bhp figures which made them a challenge to drive.

        Looking at modern times the Toyota WEC car is producing something like 1,200bhp but because of how much grip those cars are producing & because of things like traction control those cars are nowhere near the challenge of an 80s F1 car with similar power levels at full boost.

        That makes many many corners no longer flat, say Eau Rouge is now flat, but with 1250 bhp it wouldnt be.

        Even with 1,200bhp a WEC can still take corners like Eau Rouge easy flat because its more about the overall grip those cars are producing than how much power they get from the engines.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_MW_gX_G4

        Its even become possible to take Eau Rouge flat in a GT car in recent years due to improvements in downforce & overall grip levels.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9c_Ql9SSsM

        1. Can LMP1 cars take Eau Rouge flat? I cannot remember this year but I thought they lift?

          1. In traffic they obviously have to lift but in clear air, Especially on fresh tyres its easy flat now.

            Here is an in-car from last year narrated by the driver (Earl Bamber) who confirms they can take it flat.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_MW_gX_G4

            1. Wow. Thats very good. The GT cars have to lift though even though they are travelling slower?

    18. Can we please stop reporting on mundane things that come out of Lewis’ mouth? A lot of people want to go to Mars. A lot of people want steak for dinner tonight. Sorry, but it’s not insightful or interesting. Start a trend, Keith, and stop it.

    19. No One Better (@)
      16th January 2016, 18:52

      This is hilarious and also sinister. Kind of reminds of those people who fan the flames that lead to something tragic happen, and then they respond with “I didn’t tell them to behave that way.” Well, what did you think was going to happen when you instigate a certain response out of people. Only the naive would believe Keith isn’t carefully choosing and twisting Hamilton’s quotes to generate traffic. The proof is 70 comments about a guy who said he won’t mind moving to mars after watching The Martian. In case you guys forgot, He was invited to the set to watch the great director finish the final scenes of the movie with Matt Damon.

      1. Given the same reaction happens when the lead article isn’t about Hamilton, your entire argument falls apart before it even gets started.

        1. No One Better (@)
          16th January 2016, 23:18

          Hey raceprouk, Keith has these articles and headlines for the likes of you. So of course you’re not going to see anything wrong with it and will defend to keep it going. No surprise there!

          1. I couldn’t care less what Hamilton says off-track. If he wants to go to Mars, fine; if he doesn’t, that’s also fine. The whole article is nonsense filler as far as I’m concerned. But I don’t act like it’s some huge crime to feature a fluff article occasionally.

            What’s going on here is there’s an article you don’t like. But instead of simply not reading it, you insteal spew drivel and bile as if somehow that’s going to change anything. Well, I got news for ya bud: no-one cares what you think. All people see in you is a whiner, and they laugh at you. They say “Look at him, getting all bent out of shape over nothing!”, and they scroll right on past to read the comments of people with something meaningful to say.

            In quite a few round-ups, there’s at least one article where I think ‘why bother including that?’. And the number of times I’ve raised it as an issue? Zero. Because I simply ignore them. It’s a technique with a success rate of 100%; I recommend you try it.

    20. No One Better (@)
      17th January 2016, 5:19

      So naive. I guess just enjoy F1fanatic Tabloid Edition. If you look at the sub stories of the roundup, every single one of them is far more interesting and relevant. Yet the leading headline is a throw away comment from Hamilton. These types of headlines and stories are nothing more than playing to the cheap seats. It’s weak. You trying to belittle or downplay other peoples opinions is also weak. If you’re fine with it, that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. But don’t play dumb and pretend like you don’t know the tricks of advertising and news don’t apply here for grabbing readers attention. I too only care about the on track or off track news related to sporting regs and rules. But understand a website like this ain’t going to survive on a purely objective and substantive reporting :). Hence the tabloid-ish stories.

      1. So you go on a petty rant about ‘tabloid junk’, then admit it’s necessary to compete. So now, not only do you look like a whiner, you’re now contradicting yourself.

        1. @noonebetter So you admit the sub stories that Keith has also included, not ignored, are more relevant . Thank goodness he has included them then, right? I would think a tabloid would simply ignore those stories altogether. Your real issue is the leading headline, and even Keith admitting he was having a little fun amidst article after article of what F1 is going to do, and then is not, or should do, but won’t etc etc just doesn’t cut it. Keith, in your opinion, must do things your way…on his site.

          The reality is that one needn’t spend very much time at all on this site to realize there is nowhere else one needs go to find anything and everything they need to know about what is currently going on in F1 and what has occurred in the past. Keith has well earned the right to have a little fun once in a while, (I like to think he is usually having fun or he wouldn’t be doing this) and he trusts his readers are intelligent enough to discern the bulk of the ‘serious’ stuff from the odd tongue in cheek gaff.

          We all seem to enjoy the hilarious Caption Competition too…or is that to you just more idiocy amidst what you would like to dictate Keith do with his own incredibly current, jam packed, informative site.

      2. Its this time of year. What else is there to talk or report about? 2017 rules and regs? F1 is all talk so don’t hold your breath.

    21. I cant think any other f1 driver which has this cheap celebrity click bait appeal attached to them. there is something seriously wrong with Hamiltons personality, he is like a Kardashian – very simple and uneducated and has know idea how to talk to media, and I am sure he has had training – he just comes across as well, plain stupid.

      1. Yeah but who cares? Guys killin life!

    22. No One Better (@)
      17th January 2016, 17:43

      Why do I even bother! Enjoy your site kids.

      1. Why do I even bother!

        Because you are firmly of the belief that your opinion is the One True Opinion, and the world should run according to your word and yours alone.

    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'.