Red Bull urging high downforce cars for 2017 over Mercedes’ objections

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Red Bull will lobby F1 to introduce higher downforce cars next year at a meeting in Geneva tomorrow, a move resisted by Mercedes, with time running out to agree a deal.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Manor introduced a daring innovation to F1: colour
Lots of love for Manor’s new car:

It’s such a beautiful car, really.

With this kind of livery, I’d imagine this would be the perfect fit for a young American driver who has prior experience with the team, proven capable in race scenarios, very marketable in bringing in new sponsors on top of the existing ones they already have.

…Oh yeah. Oops.

Happy birthday!

No F1 Fanatic birthdays today

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

Happy birthday to Satoru Nakajima who is 63 today.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

77 comments on “Red Bull urging high downforce cars for 2017 over Mercedes’ objections”

  1. I was really hoping for a yellow car from HAAS, though I guess they may have been spooked by the chance of a return of the bumblebee (Renault).

    RB12 livery looks brilliant on track and on the car it was designed for! It looks good and everyone seems to have got a better handle on reliability since last year, which can only be good for the season.

    Massively agree with Keith on Vettel’s helmet, it’s the sort of powerful image that makes me think of the dominating years of Shuey. The whole car seems to be designed for him alone ( I’m not saying that it is, just the imagery lends me to the idea of a squad working in complete harmony).

  2. So on one hand Red Bull want to increase aero(read: dirty aero) and on the other hand they want to make something fantastic for the fans?! There’s a correlation mistake in there, or rather just a smokescreen to cover a proposal that will benefit solely RBR to the detriment of the sport

    I’m increasingly convinced that if F1 wants to improve itself it must listen to Red Bull’s proposals and then do exactly the opposite. And if they don’t like it, they can bugger off

    1. if F1 wants to keep giving more and more power to the power unit constructors than it will limit aero and emphasize bigger tires and fuel restrictions :) If F1 wants to give hope to the guys who don’t make the best power unit, or ‘factory’ teams, then they will lift the noses and let aero come back. Right now F1 is only about what the engine manufacturers want, and they will stick together on that, and drama. It’s going the same way of MotoGP after the advent of the 800cc class, fuel restrictions, control tire and traction control.

      If you want real competition, you will listen to RBR, if you want to be told what to want, just wait for the commercial.

      1. @xsavior You’re falling into the trap of either/or. You don’t have to give more power to the factory teams or go with RBR. While the factory teams are looking out for themselves, so is RBR. And the idea that high downforce will lead to, in your words, “real competition” is laughable. The problem is that cars cannot follow one another closely and higher downforce via wings is not going to make that any better, it will only make it worse.

        Your dig at people for just being told what to want, and yet you are doing the same with RBR. Critical thinking is necessary. I’m not saying I know more about F1 than the teams, but I think it is fairly obvious that just slapping more aero on the cars (as requested by the team known for aero) is not the way to go.

        1. oooh. Nice try, unfortunately my last statement does not offer an exclusive or.

          “If you want real competition, you will listen to RBR,”. Right now F1 is being governed by the major manufactures, or what Bernie might refer to as a Cartel. Logic is a subset of Critical thinking.

        2. As you say, higher downforce created by wings is the issue, however the article above talks about creating the downforce from larger diffusers, which are underneath the car, and are not affected by following the car in front, sort of like the 70s cars but not full length

          1. I doubt the rear diffuser is not affected by the car in front. Everything from the front wing back affects how air goes under the car, into the side pods, and around and over it as well, so when the front wing is affected in dirty air so is the rest of the car including the rear diffuser. Every car behaves less ideally when in dirty air than clean which is why the key has to be a ratio of mechanical grip to aero that leans more toward the mechanical with cars less negatively affected while in dirty air than they currently are.

          2. I am no expert on Aero, but the consensus is that the cars performance is to reliant on the front wing performance. To which degree “smaller changes” to diffusers etc will change this I do not know. But there is in theory a very simple way to find out: Increase mechanical grip through racing tires and if Pirelli does not believe they are capable of producing such tires let Michelin and Bridgestone and anyone else come in. If cars still cannot follow each other then it is time for a bigger overhaul. But that extra year should give F1 enough time for effective measures. In my mind F1 needs a lot of deregulation, Engineers today don’t have enough liberty create performance.

          3. @robbie it is not a question if it affects or not, obviously running in clean air is much better. But if your downforce comes from under the car instead of complex wings, those turbulences created by the car in front have a much smaller effect in the stability of the car and on its aerodynamic performance. Therefore it is easier to follow the car in front

          4. @john-milk I hear you but we aren’t really talking about ground effects here, just AN’s proposal for more effective rear diffusers. I doubt or at least haven’t heard him say he is advocating for less sophisticated front and rear wings such that the emphasis becomes more about ground effects. If I heard him say that, I’d have a different opinion of his opinion. For now I doubt he wants less complex wings and therefore the overly-adverse effect of complex wings stuck in dirty air shall remain if Newey has his way, even if he got his diffuser back.

    2. “So on one hand Red Bull want to increase aero(read: dirty aero) and on the other hand they want to make something fantastic for the fans?!”

      It’s unfortunate that so many fans of F1 have such a fundemental lack of aero knowledge.

      many ways to increase downforce by opening up areas of the car, Blown diffusers for instance worked perfectly fine in dirty air. I’m not saying to bring them back, I’m just providing you with ONE solution thats dirty air independent. There are MANY more. Have you ever considered that Adrian Newey knows something you dont? If not, you really should… because he does.

      1. He may, Mr. X, but he is also as self serving as the rest of the teams, thus there is no reason to just take his word for it. Further, and I do realize your blown diffuser example is just that–an example, but the aero that is the problem is the front end. There aren’t a lot of ways to allow more and more dirty air from the back of one car and somehow clean it up for the one car behind.

        1. There is no aero problems with the front end, there are TIRE problems with the front end. The same tires MERC wants us to keep.

          Pirelli is the problem, aero on the front of the cars will ALWAYS be compromised in dirty air, always have, always will. However, having tires that give out because they need to take a bit more load in dirty air, THATS NEW and is the problem.

          How easy is that to see? Mercedes sees it, and they want to keep it. Talk about self serving!

          Nobody can pass up and down the entire grid because Merc’s happy with the tires? Yeah, Red Bull are the bad guys, totally makes sense.

          1. Merc would be very happy if everyone lowered their nose to the ground, the tires went twice as wide and fuel consumption went down to 50kg/hr. Why? Because the rules would favor their advantage further. There are no aero problems in WEC, or at least there weren’t. WEC offers a kind of diversity and liberal rule set that allows overtaking, and diverse strategies across different platforms, something F1 does not have. Rules will not save F1, limiting opportunities should not be celebrated :( end of rant…

          2. The cars are far too fast and far to aero reliant for grippier front tyres to be a solution. In 2017 this will be even more the case.

            I think it’s safe to say that all the teams act selfishly, so you can be equally cynical about both teams.

          3. +1 totally agree

    3. Thats just silly. If I remember correctly, RBR had proposed some bigger diffusers, which create downforce with the underflow, which, in turn, is less sensitive to the car ahead than downforce via wings.

      Did you even read Merc’s counterargument? The one about the cars actually becoming slower because supposedly the tyre pressures would increase? now THATS some nonsense. They are simply trying to protect their dominance as they know that they will have tyre problems again if they need to run higher pressures.

      1. And even if Pirelli has to increase pressures for 2017, they’ll have plenty of time to make proper ones for 2018.

    4. One thing about Red Bull I never hear mentioned is that they have given us deserving, exciting drivers not pay drivers. I would not like to see them go

  3. I don’t get what points for qualifying would change apart from potentially deciding a championship a day early which certainly wouldn’t be a benefit to the raceday show everyone is so obsessed with lately.

    I just don’t see the point of it or the need for it, Drivers already push as hard as possible in qualifying because grid position is important so I just don’t see points for qualifying adding anything to ‘the saturday show’.

    As to reverse grids, They do that then I can see F1 hemorrhaging viewers faster than it already is because every single poll/survey & discussion i’ve ever seen on the matter has had massive majorities against the idea.

    1. Oh & when it comes to more aero, Its just a gimmick in disguise so they can talk about how amazingly fast the cars are as they challenge/break old records while ignoring the poor quality racing, awfully in equal distribution of the prize money & the fact that the gimmicks the powers that be keep pushing at us are one of the things that are turning a lot of fans off!

      1. In fairness, fans have been loudly complaining demanding faster cars for years.

      2. I went to the Singapore GP a few years back, and what impressed me the most was the difference in speed – especially in the corners – between GP2 and F1. That gave me the chills, it was great to see. This is what makes people come to GP’s: experience the fastest cars on earth, glued to the track. (Oh, and yeah, the noise was awesome too!)

    2. You have to have points for Quali if you going to reverse the grid, else you will have a situation where everyone is trying to go as slow as possible (or see which team can change/use the most engines in a weekend).

      Very simply the problem with the current format is (barring some sort of drama) the fastest car lines up first, the slowest last – so really there should not be overtaking unless some one was out position.

      Swapping the grid around should theoretically create masses of overtaking as the cars reverse there order, and hence some great action. But then this is against F1 DNA……

      Perhaps other ways of swapping things up need to be thought of – top finishes in the previous race should get a sliding grid penalty? Sprint race resulting in reverse grid? Perhaps cars go out and qualify in championship order, resulting in the slower cars generally getting the better track conditions (i.e. rubbered in – may be seen as less artificial) etc

  4. We have the chance to do something for the fans, we should do it properly.

    Can’t think of a better sentence to precede the words: “ruin the sport… again”.

    It’d be better if he said: “this is the way we think F1 should be”. Because it’s open to interpretation, and discussion. What the fans want is hard to judge and in no way correlates with what a team lacking a works engine and with major resources being wasted on chassis performance wants to do.

  5. “It is a great opportunity to do something fantastic for the fans. We should do it properly.”

    Awesome, thanks Christian! I’ve been waiting so long for fair revenue distribution, less emphasis on fancy-pants aero that increases the gap between the haves and have-nots, some nice chubby tyres and a huge mechanical arm installed at the end of the pit lane to smack people with a fully grown Atlantic bluefin tuna every time the sound of their whining exceeds that of the engines.

    So glad you’ll be working with the other teams to make those things happen.

    (Obviously ‘fantastic for the fans’ is F1-speak for ‘fantastic for my team and screw everyone else’ but hey ho, one can but dream)

    1. Quite. We have enough experience of Red Bull PR by now to know where their interests lie, and it doesn’t involve anyone but themselves. Not that I blame them for trying, that’s F1 politics.

      1. Exactly, like Mercedes threats to quit over tire gate, and now them using pirelli as an excuse to keep these 20yr old laptime performing turtles on the track…

        Mercedes newest slogan:

        Be the fastest turtle!

    2. @neilosjames
      Haha COTD right there! :)
      I was thinking exactly the same. As I was reading that line of his, the image instantly popped in my mind of him squinting with his little eyes while tons and tons of hypocritical BS is flowing out of his mouth.

    3. You should wear a blue fin tuna protection helmet next time you’re around the pit lane exit…

      1. Want to go halves on an upturned bobsleigh?

  6. Red Bull are deluded to even attempt to suggest that the rest of F1 should bend over so they can bring back their championship-winning diffusers which the FIA spent so long trying to ban.

    Especially trying to claim it is for the fans.

    I pray to god we don’t have another season of them saying pure s__ like this.

    1. @strontium
      I still can’t comprehend how this team has fans. Don’t this people choke on all the BS coming from Horner and Marko? It must be the same ones who are voting for all the great politicians we have in the world today.

      1. Yeah, screw this team who brought Vettel, Ricciardo and Verstappen into the sport.

    2. You mean like how the rest of the F1 paddock had to go broke to pay for PU’s that MERCEDES and Renault screamed for?

      Man, the nerve of Red Bull!

      1. didn’t hear red bull whining about the new engines at the time the regulations were been written (and red bull were in the strategy & technical groups that came up with the formula), they were in favor of the 2014 engine regs right upto the point they realized renault were behind the game. only then did they start calling for the return of those awful torque-less v8s which allowed them to run all those silly exhaust blowing systems that gave them (and especially vettel) such a huge advantage.

        1. Red Bull is a rich team, why would they wine about spending money on PU’s? But MERCS threats to quit if the new PU regulations were pushed back any longer brought in financial hardship on the poor teams.

          Honestly I dont mind, I have no problem with the poor teams disappearing, however, fans need to stop being hypocritical.

          If we can have 20 million dollar PU’s we can spend a little bit on aero too…. or at least red bull can :-)


          1. if the pay structure in f1 wasn’t so skewed towards the bigger teams & the commercial rights owners (bernie & cvc) the small teams would not be in the financial situation they are in.

            their is plenty of money in f1 to ensure every team is financially viable, the fact that the bottom half of the grid get so little of it & that none of the big teams (including red bull who like ferrari got a special deal that see’s them get extra on top of the prize money) have been willing to do anything to change that is by far the biggest scandal & by far the biggest problem with f1 right now.

          2. “I have no problem with the poor teams disappearing”


          3. So Mr. X, in essence, you are happy for the sport to adopt rules that would ultimately be destructive in the longer term so long as your favoured team was able to continue winning over an emaciated and slowly dying field?

          4. @anon

            To summarize your side, you prefer we slow down F1 cars even further to activate the cheesecake tires and keep them in their window for a longer period of time.

          5. Mr. X, and where did I say anything about the relative performance of the cars in my original comment or make any reference to slowing the cars down?

            All I pointed out is that you are happy for the sport to adopt regulations that destroy the smaller teams and in the longer term are likely to ultimately destroy the larger teams themselves. We have seen this exact same path in multiple other racing series – the FIA GT Championship comes to mind, where the larger teams first drove out the independent teams and then ultimately drove themselves out of the sport as excessive spending on “homologation specials” eventually lead to the total implosion of the GT1 category after a mass withdrawal of manufacturer teams.

            Your proposals are, ultimately, detrimental to all parties, yet you seem to want to persist with them seemingly only because you believe it will favour your favoured team in the short term.

    3. Defending Pirelli’s poor tires that melt anytime cars are within 2 seconds is Mercedes game, why do you support that?

      1. For several years the Mercedes cars really struggled on the soft Pirelli tyres, they overheated them so badly. Obviously, having gotten many complaints the Pirelli tyres have become harder over the years, this is partially what has helped Mercedes be so strong.

        So really, I think you have it exactly opposite of what has happened.

  7. Hmmm, Mercedes depending on their Pirelli advantage (read – secret testing) to maintain the gap. Playing the same game as Red Bull just using the other side of the coin.

    Nothing changes and Merc and RB are basically doing the same thing. I love F1.

    Gotta love those Mercedes paid PR, I mean “fans”, holding that sign up at testing…

    1. what you mean the sign that 70-80%+ of all f1 fans probably agree with?

      f1 doesn’t need cars 4-5 seconds a lap faster & it certainly doesn’t need more aero.

      whats the point of having super fast cars 4-5 seconds faster & tons of aero if the racing that produces is as bad as the racing was the last time cars were that fast & had tons of downforce 11-12 years ago.

      also just a point regarding mercedes pirelli advantage, that tyre test happened 3 years ago now on tyre compounds completely different to what we have now, they may have gained a benefit in the short term back in 2013 but anything gained didn’t last long, especially as other teams also got to do tyre test’s later in that year.
      also mercedes have had just as much time on 2016 race tyres as every other team so i fail to see where there getting any advantage from.

      1. There are ways to have faster close racing – right now we have slow racing thats not close because Pirelli tires…

        If your 70% were right, the only way to get close racing back is to slow the cars down even more, so you’re 70% fans would prefer 5 seconds slower cars just to keep the pirelli tires in their operating window longer? WOW.

        How about we just get some real F1 tires and turn up the power and downforce a bit? YES, you lose aero in dirty air, but if you have tires that can compensate its not that big of a deal…. I think you’ll find that about 30% of fans know this :-)

        Good to hear from a fan that wants SLOWER F1, thats the state of the sport these days, forgive me if I fall back onto the general rule that 70% of a crowd doesnt have a clue.

        1. i never once said i wanted f1 to get slower & i never once said i liked the pirelli tyres.

          making cars faster is all well & good but the way of doing that should not be by adding more aero because that will do nothing to improve the racing.

          if you want to increase performance by moving towards ground effects & better tyres then fine but simply throwing more downforce on the cars & then relying on making gimmicks like DRs more powerful (which is what the plan for 2017 was last i heard) to counteract the negative effects of more aero is not the way to go & that is what most fans are against.

          1. F1Technical forums proved long ago there is ZERO evidence to support mechanical based seasons had better racing.

            You’re repeating a myth and that should worry you as a “fan”.

            If thats still not good enough for you, I empower you to use the internet to research F1 2014-2015. These were years that had REDUCED aero (smaller wings, no beam wing, smaller diffuser, floor restrictions) and focus on power and mechanical grip. Guess how many races were won by just 1 team during 2014-2015, is that too far ago to remember?

            F1 fans, the modern gold fish.

            Also, why dont you give Red Bull the benefit of the doubt when they call for increased downforce? By not giving them the benefit you are casting Adrian Newey into some “simpleton” class of people unable to come up with new approaches to aero. Newey is the most successful man on the grid for a reason, and that’s not because he simply throws “more wing” at a problem.

            Have you never seen his X cars? Of course these are video game concepts, but they are more than logical and based reality. Why wouldnt you want that guy leading the charge of the future of F1? Is it just blind hatred for Red Bull?

          2. “i never once said i wanted f1 to get slower & i never once said i liked the pirelli tyres.”

            if you have a problem with aero and want better racing, you’re calling for slowing the cars down, there is no way around it.

            So, you actually are saying you wanted F1 to get slower.

          3. Lol Mercedes paid some sign holders? Says a lot about where your thinking leads your arguments. Rather than repeatedly asking others to google to prove your claims, why not just reference the information you have gleaned from the technical forums that you claim is there. How about telling us the ratio of mechanical grip to aero in 2014-2015 rather than just challenging people to go on the Internet for it? I would say that kind of information is hard to get and hard to analyze from an armchair, with all the many variables we would not be privy to, and suffice it to say all we saw was cars struggling to get by one another in dirty air.

            In other words, touting that a certain season had ‘reduced aero’ and didn’t provide better racing, is not proof of anything other than that there was still not enough mechanical grip vs aero grip, and there were umpteen other factors thrown into the mix that make analysis very convoluted even for the teams let alone those in armchairs with only Google as a tool.

            Perhaps in a different world open up the aero and budgets to boot, and slap on better tires as well, and Bob’s you uncle. Oh wait…that was the MS/Ferrari era of processions and passing only through pit strategies and the undercut. Tires don’t matter to close racing if the cars are still more heavily dependent on clean air and thus heavily negatively affected once in dirty air. Good tires can only help when the cars still give the drivers confidence while in dirty air, and the more they depend on clean air the less the tires can make up for a now unpredictable and unbalanced car.

            Please if it is so easy to google for then provide us specific stats about levels of downforce and levels of mechanical grip, year by year, in hard numbers, to support your claims, and also explain other factors that may have influenced the racing in those years too.

        2. you know you burn more gas with bigger rear tires :) Bigger tires equals bigger margin of victory to Mercedes. Remember that the next time you hear the guys on the TV talking about “mechanical grip”… What ever that is (static friction).

    2. well, but at least downforce coming from diffusers isnt as sensitive to following a car up-close as wing generated downforce.

      what REALLY needs to happen is the simplification of front wings so they become less sensitive to turbulent flow. Something that neither of these 2 teams are proposing.

  8. I’m not particularly for or against reverse grids, but if it happened, it would be a massive change of the sport in almost every aspect. I can see why a lot of fans would hate it though.

    What F1 needs now is a clear path. Decide on your destination. Then start planning how to get there.

    Right now F1 can’t decide whether they want to spend their holidays in the mountains or at the beach, yet they’ve packed their luggage, gotten into the car, and are driving in circles like headless chickens.

  9. Bernie says F1 “the worst it’s ever been.” I love how he keeps sabotaging his own product.

    1. He’s lowering the cost so he can buy it cheap himself OR actually drive up the price at time of sale because of the “unlocked” potential of F1 (digital media, social engagement, etc).

      It’s pretty genius, for example, without putting money into a digital distribution system, he can still increase the sale price because a buyer would turn F1 around quickly if they did it themselves…

      He’s still the smartest guy in F1.

      1. Lol yup so smart look where F1 is today under his watch.

  10. Same old story. The teams only want rules that will benefit them in the short term.

    FOM wants to keep all the money and starve the teams and track operators.

    The FIA is mostly toothless except when it comes to super licenses that benefit their own domain.

    Mr. Horner, Mr. Ecclestone and others can pretend to care about the fans, but lip service is cheap.

    Does anybody really believe there will be new regulations by the deadline that will take F1 in a better direction?

  11. First of all I want to point out that I like the current qualifying and race format. Reverse grids idea is indeed just another gimmick and I am not sure how they are planning to implement it in a fair way.

    But maybe, just maybe, one of the problems is that with the current qualifying format we almost always end up with fastest cars in front. And when the faster cars are ahead of the slower ones already at the start, there won’t be many racing opportunities left. We tend to get more racing when very rarely some of the faster cars mess up in Q1 or are at the back due to penalties (which is usually ruined by DRS, but let’s ignore that for the moment).

    Again, I am not saying we should have reverse grids, and I don’t have any alternative idea for qualifying, but I think if somehow we could have a qualfying (maybe with less or no practice?) that adds a bit more unpredictability, there would be more racing. Of course, not being able to follow in dirty air will still be a problem that needs to be addressed.

    1. Some of the best races we got last year were on the tail end of reduced running during free practice. I wouldn’t want to see it gone all together as especially for people at track it’s more F1 time. But maybe restricting FP1 and FP2 to test or young drivers. That way drivers not yet in F1 would get some track time, and the race drivers won’t quite have dialled in creating a bit more seat of the pants racing.

      1. You’ve just given me a wonderful Idea for the weekend format. How about the teams turn up on a Friday afternoon and have a 30min warm-up session and then go into the normal qualifying format on a Friday evening (I know not every track has lights but this is purely hypothetical). This sets the grid for Sunday’s race as normal. Then Saturday is spent doing P1 and P2 so the teams can do their set-up work for the race. That way the format of the weekend is relatively unchanged but we may get the unpredictable grids that, as you say, seem to work well.

  12. Mercedes: “We like F1 just the way it is for some reason, don’t mess with it!”
    Red Bull: “We like F1 the way it was when we used to win for some reason, fix it!”

    Fans: “We think we know how to fix F1 and it’s probably completely ‘impartially’ in line with what our favourite team wants, listen to them!”

  13. The Manor looks more Dutch than American.

  14. I really dont understand all the love for the Manor livery. Theres nothing wrong with it, it looks fine but im surprised how everyone is going on about it. We are all different I guess :-)

  15. Mercedes with the Engine advantage agenda and Red Bull with the aero advantage agenda. Both would lead to a poor show for the fans.

    I suggest we take Ferrari’s proposal for 2017. They are the only team capable of not dominating a championship even after getting their ‘advantageous’ proposal approved :P

  16. Regarding Rachel Brooke’s tweet, it’s incredibly discouraging for everyone in who’s a fan of Mclaren.

    On the shakedown day, when your team principal considers the car to be ‘not good enough’, only after enduring the most disastrous season in the team’s history the previous year, then….. there is absolutely no hope for them this year again.

  17. I think what Red Bull is doing is just basic tactics, asking for a foot in order to get an inch. What I don’t understand is why no one ever mentions bringing back ground effect. Perhaps eliminating wings altogether, or restricting ground effect and drastically reducing the wings. I think we could have cars that seriously challenge the drivers, excite the teams and fans, while allowing them to follow much closer. I’m not an expert in aerodynamics by an means, but it isn’t used extensively in any series that I know of, so I’m not sure the industry even knows that much about it. I think you probably would lose down force because the car in front is sucking the air up, directly in front of you, but I think it wouldn’t matter that much because the cars would have so much lower a drag coefficient that going out of the draft wouldn’t have nearly the same effect that it does now. I really think it would at least make a great addition to the racing. I suppose it’s probably too radical a change, but I think there is a lot of consensus that drastic changes might be necessary. At least introducing it on a small scale, maybe even a standardized unit for the field, should make following closely easier and considerably increase lap times too. Of course they would need tires that they could push as hard as they want, but they should always have had that. The industry has just gotten too big now and that’s why we rarely see anything truly interesting or exciting anymore. I think it’s probably worth looking at, or discussing anyway.

  18. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
    23rd February 2016, 8:10

    Seriously, why does Rachel Brooks host Paddock Uncut on Sky F1? Her vague presentation style, inane questions and general lack of interest/intelligence is actually capable of inducing a mini-stroke. Your average Silverstone regular good do an infinitely better job…

  19. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
    23rd February 2016, 8:18

    It is a great opportunity to do something fantastic for the fans. We should do it properly.

    Excellent Christian, then abandon your euphemistic attempt to reinstate Red Bull’s aerodynamic supremacy and propose what the fans actually want – wheel-to-wheel racing and democratized performance, something that can only be achieved but cutting the aerodynamic downforce that teams spend tens of millions on, and increasing the mechanical grip of the car.

    What is concerning is not that Red Bull care more about their competitiveness than the fans of the sport, but that the FIA cannot differentiate between genuine proposals for a better sport and overt self-interest.

  20. Missed this one: Lauda responding to Ecclestone’s latest comments:

    “We are having a big meeting with Bernie and I hope someone asks him his reasons for saying those things.”

  21. Istr Pat Symonds saying diffusers are just as badly affected by following as wings are. Moving the front wing made a big difference though.

  22. 2017 rules, limited radio messages like, box, retire car now, push etc. Or for road relevance let’s go driverless cars that is where technology is going.

  23. Great. Another meeting of top heads doing nothing but agreeing to disagree and putting their own interests above what’s actually needed for the greater good of the sport.

    Onward progress!

  24. NASCAR seems to already do an OK job of serving people literally on the otherside of the world in terms of when the races are held (People here probably don’t like the idea of waking up midnight (literally) to watch every race).

    So that’s not the worst start in history.

  25. Sorry Red Bull, no one believes you. The only reason you want more downforce is because that’s what your good at, and in the current rules you won’t win anything. Yes, you’ll win with more downforce, but the racing will be worse (hard to believe, I know) and the use of false mechanisms to make the racing more “exciting” will increase. So for your proposals, no thanks.

  26. “If you look at the numbers it was rather close between the two of us and it will be close this year.”
    mmmmm im not holding my breath thats for sure. Hopefully they will be closer, but lets be honest, no-one is catching Lewis or Rosberg again

Comments are closed.