In the round-up: Red Bull owner Dietrich Mateschitz has reiterated his objections to the political power of Mercedes and Ferrari in F1 and repeated his threat to pull his team out if they cannot obtain a competitive engine.
Links
Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more from hundreds of sites across the web:
Mateschitz slams Merc/Ferrari power (Autosport)
"We have the situation right now that the tail waves the dog. The power of Mercedes and Ferrari is not doing good to F1."
Toto Wolff: Wehrlein has to hit targets to get Mercedes drive (ESPN)
"This is who we are today, but we need to look forward and the years to come, and Pascal has been a part of Mercedes for a long time and we would not have put ourselves behind him in the way we did if we didn't expect him to one day step in a Silver Arrow."
Force India may sacrifice start of ’17 for ’16 results (F1i)
"Usually if the regulations don’t change you get marginal, diminishing returns. We’re not quite there yet, we’re still finding performance in the car but I think we’re going to switch not based on not being able to find any more but we’re going to switch based on the fact that if we continue with ’16 we will jeopardise where we start ’17."
"Once in a long discussion Michael said to me: 'You don't need to call me for the next year, I'm disappearing.' I think it was his secret dream to be able to do that some day."
Retro: When Hamilton and Rosberg got along as team mates (Motorsport)
"If we go back to karting, where they did around 30 races, I believe that Nico, in qualifying, beat Lewis 20 to 10... or even 22 to 8. But Lewis won more races. He's more aggressive, more all-or-nothing."
Got a tip for a link to feature in the next F1 Fanatic round-up? Send it in here:
Social media
Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:
Jean Alesi in a Ferrari F1/87 & son Giuliano in dad's 1990 Tyrrell 019 at Suzuka today. Pics: @alexgarciaGV27 #F1 pic.twitter.com/zoCJvwx8sl
— F1 Fanatic (@f1fanatic_co_uk) March 12, 2016
Would like to get excited about @FIAformulaE. But watching D'Ambrosio lose the lead because Di Grassi is more popular than him? No thanks.
— F1 Fanatic (@f1fanatic_co_uk) March 12, 2016
- Find more official F1 accounts to follow in the F1 Twitter Directory
Snapshot
Will Power heads a Penske one-two-three-four for the first race of the IndyCar season at St Petersburg today – join us on F1 Fanatic Live from 4:30pm UK time tomorrow to follow all the action.
Comment of the day
Red Bull have previously indicated no new engine manufacturer will come in next year and @Thef1engineer reckons it could take much longer:
On the engine front, there’s no point a ‘new’ manufacturer entering now. The current agreement runs to 2020, which is only four years, and do we really see a new manufacturer being able to get an engine designed, built, competitive, reliable etc… in that time frame? Nope.
The fact is, the current rule book was designed by the teams, for the teams. The rules are, in effect, an insurance policy.
@Thef1engineer
From the forum
Happy birthday!
Happy birthday to Armen, Pabs, Starosta and Aqib!
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
Neither Sauber nor Manor took to the track during the first practice session of the year 12 months ago today – Manor because their cars weren’t ready and Sauber due to a dispute with former driver Giedo van der Garde:
Michal (@michal2009b)
13th March 2016, 0:14
Watched today’s FE race. What a battle for the lead we would have had if not for a FanBoost.
Julian (@julianwins)
13th March 2016, 1:36
Do you happen to have the highlights or the full race video on hand? Sadly, I didn’t see it live.
Martin Nash
13th March 2016, 5:59
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUZlZAjt5CQ
ColdFly F1 (@)
13th March 2016, 8:59
Thanks for the link.
If only Formula 1 could put a 6:30min highlights online, how easy would it be to reach more fans. And FanBoost might be a miss and I don’t understand that stumbling to the next car (why not just exchange a battery pack?, but FE is trying hard to be different and more modern and ‘funky’ than F1. The catwalk in front of the podium, or interviewing the winner when still in his car, are great examples.
JCost (@jcost)
13th March 2016, 13:06
FE has way better new media approach and coverage than F1. #BernieMustGo
Jason Miller (@flatdarkmars)
13th March 2016, 4:25
Sadly, the outcome of the race has changed some more after the finish. It seems di Grassi’s first car was under weight.
http://www.fiaformulae.com/en/news/2016/march/di-grassi-stripped-of-mexico-win.aspx
graham228221 (@graham228221)
13th March 2016, 7:15
Er… there was a tight battle for the lead throughout the first half or has everyone got a selective memory?
Di Grassi had one shot to use fanboost and he used it perfectly. It’s hardly like fanboost successfully influences the result everyweek, and certainly not the lead of the race.
I can’t help but compare it to DRS, where the chasing driver gets a significant advantage lap after lap in the designated FIA Overtaking Zones ™ until they get past. How many race results have been decided because the DRS has been so overpowered that every overtake has been as simple as taking a bus on a motorway?
I just a bit sick of all the sniping about Formula E. In Motorsport there are unfair advantages and disadvantages everywhere in all series, some are gimmicks to improve “The Show” and some are not – from massively inflated and unequal budgets, to team orders, to DRS, to success ballast and reverse grids away from F1.
Why not introduce an advantage for popular drivers? Why not try to put attempt to give the fans a small bit of involvement in the sport?
When there are so many complaints about the unconnectedness between the anonymous, hypermanaged drivers of F1 and fans who aren’t allowed within a few hundred feets of their heroes (unless they have friends in the right places or several thousand pounds to waste), should we not be applauding efforts not just the efforts of FE to give fans so much access but also to give them an actual role to play in the race.
But whatever. If people turned off at that point they missed yet another great race. Annoying that Di Grassi has had yet another DQ (seems to happen to him a lot), but hey it means that the ding-dong battle between D’ambrosio and Buemi was for the lead afterall!
chris (@)
13th March 2016, 8:25
Er…..
out of all the artificial measures you listed above, fan boost is the most arbitrary. If Kimi had fan boost he’d likely win each weekend, Seb likely would not have 4 WDC’s, each countryman would have an even more unfair advantage of winning their home GP etc etc. I care more about how good the drivers actually drive their cars rather than if they are more popular than others outside their machines. After all It’s a team sport, the drivers are just at the pointy end of the combined effort of many hundreds of people’s determination, innovation, ingenuity, sacrifice and ambition to go racing, why are fans not able to vote for any of them?
If FE wants to be taken seriously, it needs to ditch fan boost (FB).
Tristan
13th March 2016, 11:57
“If FE wants to be taken seriously, it needs to ditch fan boost.”
Why’s that exactly? There is a whole genre of television devoted to fan interaction. The competition becomes more than just the raw rules of the game and extends to the meta-game of being a good sportsman, showing good character, interacting with your fan-base to get them to vote…
It’s not unfair in the slightest because every driver has the chance to put the effort in to showing a good character and winning fan-boost. It’s not just given out randomly.
Is it different? Sure… Is it not taken seriously *by the purists*? Sure… But does it need to ditch fan boost? Not at all.
Nick (@npf1)
13th March 2016, 9:43
Is it still ‘sniping’ when people just genuinely don’t enjoy the idea of fanboost? Giving fans the opportunity to influence the outcome of the race is something most people don’t like and have posted arguments against over and over again on Formula E articles on this very website. If anything, they’re the ones making an argument, while the people in favor seem to not go beyond ‘why not?’ and ‘people will feel more involved’, the latter being quite the generalization.
The problem with advantages for popular drivers is that you’ll get the same kind of locked grids you have in F1 and NASCAR. The popular drivers manage to hog all the good seats and you barely get new talent into the top teams. Because Formula E certainly already has its top and subtop teams. The last thing you want is drivers hearing ‘well, you’re a GP2 champion but there’s no place for you in FE because you don’t get enough Fanboost votes’.
On top of that, I’m not quite sure that comparing Fanboost to DRS, nearly universally loathed on this site, helps Fanboost in any way..
graham228221 (@graham228221)
13th March 2016, 15:03
Firstly, I don’t think Formula E teams have considered who’s going to win the fanboost vote when picking their drivers otherwise Buemi would have been dropped long ago.
Secondly…
“The popular drivers manage to hog all the good seats”
Oh wow, the fans getting to see their favourite drivers at the front of the grid. What a disaster that would be! Of course, this isn’t actually how things work in F1 – but would it really be that bad if it did?
Thirdly, I was comparing Fanboost as superior to DRS. They are both unfair advantages and they both have their major problems, but I’d take a one-shot power boost that the driver can use anywhere in attack or defence any day over a speed boost in a designated zone for the chasing driver that is essentially designed to get the cars in order of their underlying pace.
Finally, I was referring to sniping generally about Formula E. I really do get the impression that people are dismissing it because they are trying different things – basically thinking “oh yeah, it was another great race, action all over the field, great battle for the lead, people making mistakes and getting punished for it, BUT OH MY GOD FANBOOST IF ONLY IT WASN’T FOR THREE DRIVERS GETTING A SHORT POWER BOOST I COULD ENJOY THIS RACE” is it reeeeeally that bad?
Andy (@andybantam)
13th March 2016, 16:02
When the outcome of a race can be influenced by what is essentially having more twitter followers than any others, it really is that bad.
Ian Stephens (@ians)
14th March 2016, 23:12
Surely DiGrassi’s advantage was an underweight car? Without that he would not have been close enough for FanBoost.
DaveD (@daved)
14th March 2016, 0:34
Usually the Fan Boost is not much of a factor, but it clearly gave di Grassi the lead and ruined a chance for a full on fight up front. Of course, with his DQ, it ended up being a non-factor….but it still robbed us of some more fighting up front.
But overall, I find FE to be competitive enough in most races that it keeps my interest throughout. So I’m not complaining when you compare it to how many frustrating things we have to deal with in F1.
HK (@me4me)
13th March 2016, 0:16
In the same article, Mateschitz praises Renault for their newly found professionalism and enthusiasm. This in itself is bigger news than Red Bull wanting engine parity. Bernie wasn’t wrong when stating media was partly to blame for the negativity surrounding F1.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
13th March 2016, 0:19
@me4me Says you. I don’t think a professional motor racing team describing itself as professional is newsworthy.
That said if Ecclestone ever manages to say anything positive about his product again, that may very well be newsworthy…
HK (@me4me)
13th March 2016, 0:24
@keithcollantine, describing itself? Not sure what you mean. I think you missed the Renault part.
Mr. X
13th March 2016, 0:21
DM is one of the best politicians in F1.
what he is saying between the lines is hilarious.
RaceProUK (@)
13th March 2016, 0:33
RaceProUK (@)
13th March 2016, 0:33
…something went wrong with the markup… I think I messed up
Strontium (@strontium)
13th March 2016, 0:45
This. Like, sure they’ve been fighting for the wins, but ultimately almost everything has just been them answering questions and then having their answers spun into something out of context.
lockup (@)
13th March 2016, 11:17
What the media are guilty of, again with this sanitised Chiesa interview, is not bigging it up, it’s whitewashing over the fact one of these cute childhood friends cheated on the other, twice. That’s what killed off their friendship, nothing else. It took away the respect so it’s not going to go away, and other little things keep happening too, so if Rosberg doesn’t get his contract renewed that will be why.
It’s a FOM omerta thing, which is why the Sky Midweek Report on Monaco is uniquely missing its video, in which guest driver James Calado flatly pronounced it deliberate.
So this Motorsport.com item is another disappointing example of how the media can be managed, and rewrite history to suit the money.
RaceProUK (@)
13th March 2016, 11:58
You mean the ‘cheating’ that has only been referred to as that by the very same media you’re claiming is now whitewashing it?
lockup (@)
13th March 2016, 13:36
I don’t recall any of the media daring to call it ‘cheating’. Even the one Rosberg’s own team actually fined him for.
RaceProUK (@)
13th March 2016, 15:37
So the team didn’t call it cheating, the people running the sport didn’t call it cheating, and the media didn’t call it cheating… so who exactly called it cheating? Oh, right, bitter Hamilton fans. And then the media picked up on that and saw it would get them profit, so played to it.
lockup (@)
13th March 2016, 16:41
The media never played to it.
RaceProUK (@)
13th March 2016, 23:19
Are you serious? Every time there was even the slightest hint of conflict between Hamilton and Rosberg, the media was all over it, always calling back to how they ‘used to be such good friends when they were kids’ as if a couple of petty arguments could have any noticeable effect.
Glenn (@glennb)
13th March 2016, 11:31
I couldn’t agree with your translation more.
Markup mess up overlooked this time ;)
ivz (@ivz)
13th March 2016, 0:38
So much for the new engine formula attracting multiple new engine manufacturers…..the way things are going, it will be a big fat ONE (Honda) who have entered for what will be how many years? These engines are meant to go till 2020? Huge fail on that part.
No doubting the technology is great with the new formula, but in 10 years will there even be any internal combustion engines around?
Fast
13th March 2016, 3:01
The ‘new’ engine formula was a great idea yet as we’ve seen it was poorly executed. Too complicated, costly and sucked the noise DNA right out of the equation. It seems a lot of the current , budget engine discussiona are to set up for the next time around and move back to basics. Hybrid systems will be more efficient and could therefore be lighter and serve to augment internal combustion rather than over-shadow it, as is the current case. Internal combustion engines will still be in use for at least the next 50 years. What is changing and will continue to do so is the way we use the internal combustion engine.
TheF1Engineer (@thef1engineer)
13th March 2016, 8:02
Spot on :).
F1 often means well, but once you get the teams sticking their ore in, you end up with something that is severely diluted and as you quite rightly say, poorly executed.
I keep an eye on various F1 forums, and it seems to me the majority of fans really only want 2 things from F1, close racing, and a sensory overload from the cars, or a WOW factor if you will. Would that be fair?
There is definitely more of a “back-to-basics” mindset in the air, but then there have also been murmerings of a more WEC-type approach, stability through diversity, rather than changing a fundamental rule every “X” years.
What I would be very surprised to see stay is the MGU-H. Without going into the detail of how that works, together with the turbo, that essentially sucks the noise out of the tailpipe, and fans have made it pretty well known they want more noise (or pitch, to be accurate), so ultimately, that MGU has to go, as fantastic a piece of technology it is.
TheF1Engineer (@thef1engineer)
13th March 2016, 7:50
The problem hasn’t been with bringing hybrid engines in per se, the problem has been with the rules surrounding bringing them in.
At the end of the day, a hybrid powertrain project is a MASSIVE undertaking, in terms of personnel, research, development, cost, pretty much every resource you could think of. If you want manufacturers to enter your championship, you need to permit them to “spend” that resource, not do what Formula 1 do which is restrict the spending of resource at pretty much every turn.
You also have to permit manufacturers to do what they want, and CRUCIALLY, allow them to correct it if they get things wrong, which they inevitably will somewhere along the line.
I know BoP is a sore subject amongst some, but it’s one of the key regulations in the WEC which allows the manufacturers to experiment with different technologies and see which works best for them, in line with their company ideologies, without having to incur endless rafts of penalties for example. You have to encourage them and entice them, not hinder them.
Basically, the sport needs to use the WEC’s technical rulebook as a base, and then tailor it to the requirements of F1.
Yes there still will be the ICE around. Not for reasons of engineering mind you. More for socio-economic and political reasons. Hybrid only really exists because there’s still accessible oil in the ground, and as we all know, petro-chemical companies have the final say on these kinds of things ;).
anon
13th March 2016, 9:15
@thef1engineer, with regards to your comment that “Basically, the sport needs to use the WEC’s technical rulebook as a base, and then tailor it to the requirements of F1.”
Is that necessarily such a good idea? You might like the regulations in the LMP1 class if you are a major manufacturer, but figures like Hughes de Chaunac have complained that the ACO’s policies have destroyed the privateers in that class by strangling them with regulations that only serve to push up costs (the privateer entries have fallen from 5 in 2012 to 2 this year, and there are doubts over whether Kolles will enter the 2017 season given the upcoming regulation changes).
The independent teams in F1 have complained about cost inflation, but the independent teams and suppliers in the WEC have also complained that the regulations in the LMP1 category have caused exactly the same problem. It’s just less visible because the manufacturers dominate the discussion – when did you last hear from Rebellion or Kolles about the current regulations?
With regards to “endless rafts of penalties” – the ACO does also impose penalties for teams exceeding the engine usage limitations (a 3 minute stop and go penalty in the first race where the team exceeds their engine allocation, which Audi nearly fell foul of), so the regulations are not necessarily that much kinder in the WEC.
TheF1Engineer (@thef1engineer)
13th March 2016, 12:47
The regulations are the major cost driver in F1, and as you quite rightly point out, the WEC is starting to fall foul of this particular tight-rope aswell. To be fair, they’ve done well to stave off the problem this long.
What I’m suggesting when I say, “basically, the sport needs to use the WEC’s technical rulebook as a base, and then tailor it to the requirements of F1,” is that F1 buys into the mindset/philosophy of “stability through diversity.” Have a clear, simple set of framework regulations within which teams are permitted to work and which are financially achievable for all, and then, crucially, LEAVE IT ALONE!!!
Moving to simpler hybrid engines and simpler aero would be prime examples. In a snippet, complexity costs!
Yes the ACO do, however, they are sensible penalties aren’t they, that don’t sail way past the downright ridiculous to the point where the sport becomes a laughing stock. 168 places worth of penalties at Monza. Says it all really doesn’t it :).
anon
14th March 2016, 21:47
@thef1engineer, it’s good to see that it is possible to have a civil and more nuanced discussion on the topic.
With regards to the issue of spending wars, cost inflation has become something of a more pressing issue in the WEC in recent years – whilst the privateers felt the pressure and buckled first, it’s starting to bite amongst the manufacturers as well.
Toyota have already been vociferous about introducing more cost controls, having previously pushed for restrictions on testing and on windtunnel hours. According to the German press, Vasselon has suggested the ACO should investigate copying the token system that is currently in use in F1 to restrain spending on powertrain development, and leaving a few hints that Toyota might reconsider its LMP1 program if the ACO doesn’t put more measures in place to contain costs.
Dr Ullrich has also begun to complain that the ACO needs to do more work to increase the media profile of the WEC and to attract more sponsors to the series as well – with VW facing more straightened times due to the emissions scandal, the cost of publicising the series (given Audi is one of the WEC’s biggest sponsors) is beginning to hurt. It’s not at crisis point yet, but things don’t seem to be quite as rosy within the WEC as they might have looked a few years ago.
With regards to the technical discussion, the idea of “stability though diversity”, it seems to be the case – at least in the way that the ACO operates the system – that the system only works provided that there is a limit on how far that diversity actually goes.
The ACO’s performance balancing mechanisms are not really designed to balance a large number of participants – they are only really designed with the intention of balancing the fastest runners in the petrol and diesel categories. It works reasonably well with a small number of different participants to balance, but I’m not sure it would work so well if you started to significantly increase the number of manufacturers and the number of variables in the performance equation started to grow.
Incidentally, with regards to the topic of the stability of the regulations – the WEC has seen a lot of major changes in the past few years. The ACO completely changed the engine regulations in 2011 by introducing new capacity limits, only to then scrap those regulations completely in 2014 as they introduced the new fuel flow limitations instead (along with the introduction of KERS operated 4WD systems, with the capacity of the energy recovery systems also being overhauled in in 2014).
Chassis regulations were changed with the ACO enforcing closed cockpits in 2011, reduction in chassis width in 2014, changes in the design of the crash structures and the rollover structures following Duval’s concussion in the 2014 24 Hours of Le Mans, whilst the regulations will change again in 2017 to introduce new changes to the design of the safety cell after concerns that back injuries were occurring too frequently amongst LMP1 drivers. When you drill down into it, I don’t think that the regulations in the WEC have really been that stable for that long.
Patrick (@paeschli)
13th March 2016, 8:19
I disagree completely with COTD. If engine parity is achieved by 2020, it would be in the interest of the sport to keep the regulations the same for another 5 years or so.
A new engine manufacturer could ask for a longer period of stability in the rules before accepting a return to Formula One.
Rules are changed every two months in F1, using the rules as an excuse to not bring new engine manufacturers in is stupid.
TheF1Engineer (@thef1engineer)
13th March 2016, 8:48
I’d be interested as to the reasons why you disagree with it…
That’s a pretty big “IF.” A lot of very important and powerful people have a lot of money resting on that IF. A lot of the team personnel have their livelihoods resting on that IF. IF’s are a great luxury afforded to those who don’t have to pick up the tab.
But even IF we do reach parity by 2020 (we won’t, but let’s say we will), that still doesn’t answer the pretty fundamental issue of the customer teams getting inferior machinery, and by extension, the manufacturers still having control F1, not the FIA/FOM.
I think we pretty much all agree that the teams making the rules to the same sport in which they compete is not a good situation to be in? In legal terms, its called “conflict of interest,” and you need only be a fan of any TV legal drama to know how much that’s frowned upon.
I appreciate your sentiment, but there is a certain amount of not being realistic about it. Yes, a new engine manufacturer could ask for a longer period of stability, but Audi have repeatedly made themselves clear on the subject of F1, Porsche weighed up F1 and WEC before opting for an LMP1 effort, I don’t hear any murmerings from anyone else?
The sporting rules are changed it seems like every 2 months yes, but the technical rules aren’t, and the technical rules are what’s the topic of this discussion. Yes you could argue testing is a sporting rule, but the technical rules still come first, after-all, you can’t test something without first being interested in building it ;).
BasCB (@bascb)
13th March 2016, 9:13
Well, I think that if they had not introduced it, Renault might be long gone and Mercedes made it pretty clear at the time as well that they were losing the appetite to continue in F1. When you take it that way, we are up 3 manufacturers
TheF1Engineer (@thef1engineer)
13th March 2016, 11:57
I 100% agree with you that had we not gone “more” hybrid with the engines, we’d have been staring at Renault leaving the sport, possibly followed by Mercedes. Ferrari weren’t particularly bothered, and Honda wouldn’t be here.
Bit of background. End of last decade, early part of this, the engines on the table were of a 4 cylinder architecture, at the behest of VW. (I’m sure you’ll remember all the VW rumours from around that time, that’s where they stemmed from). However, VW eventually decided AGAINST an F1 entry, in favour of pursuing the high-efficiency from normal diesel and petrol engines. (VW are actually quite late to the hybrid party when you think about it).
Anyway, with VW no longer championing the 4 cylinder, this left Renault pretty much isolated, as Ferrari never really wanted to go below a V6, Merc sided with Ferrari, therefore low and behold, we ended up with a V6.
That established, and this really is the key point, the manufacturers wanted to go MORE hybrid, but that doesn’t/didn’t mean going AS hybrid as they have done. Quite simply, whilst the FIA elections and succession of Mosley by Todt was going on, the works team engineers got a hold of the regulations and simply went to town on them.
By the time the FIA had finished with all their in-house politics, the engines were pretty much finalised and ready-to-go. They got the rubber-stamp, and here we are.
If F1 adopted the same kW/architecture of hybrid system that’s on the Formula E cars, I’d summise the majority would be happy. You establish a 2-way technology transfer between Formula E and Formula 1, and for all intents and purposes, manufacturers get to push and develop the technology on a 2-for-the-price-of-1 type basis.
Nick (@npf1)
13th March 2016, 9:49
F1 tried to involve Volkswagen and others in the making of the current rules as well, but was never very transparent about how much they actually involved potential manufacturers. Seemingly, they did not do enough.
What scares off manufacturers will no doubt partially be Honda and Renault’s problems with the current power units, not to mention the cost of development. Not every manufacturer has invested as much in Hybrid technology as Mercedes, Honda and Renault have, apart from Toyota, but they’ve already burnt themselves on F1 once.
Frankly, the rules are too complex and too focussed on one manufacturer making the entire power unit. If the rules allowed for more cooperation (imagine a Nissan ICE running with Renault’s tech) or perhaps independent parties making the ERS and such, the bar to enter would be lowered and we could see more diversification.
F1 however still thinks manufacturers need them more than F1 needs them, so will probably just continue messing up engine rules after 2020, until F1 can adopt the ‘powered by Ferrari’ branding from A1GP.
TheF1Engineer (@thef1engineer)
13th March 2016, 12:10
Yep you’re quite right they did. I’ve addressed the VW scenario in my reply above. Hopefully that clears the waters slightly for you :).
And you highlight a very good point, “not every manufacturer has invested as much in hybrid technology.” There aren’t that many manufacturers RACING hybrids these days, so can F1 really afford to be so elitest about the whole thing?
The key word around this whole hybrid era is “complexity.” A hybrid vehicle needn’t be complex, therefore it needn’t be expensive, therefore F1 needn’t really be in this whole situation at all tbh.
What F1 really needs rules wise is Ross Brawn at the head of an independent TWG, where the teams can still have a say on the rules to the sport, because I feel that’s important so as to ensure manufacturer interest, but crucially, they should NOT have any voting rights. Same goes for drivers. Input, Yes. Voting rights, No.
mickey18 (@mickey18)
13th March 2016, 1:53
One more week everyone! Get keen.
Greg Kingston (@gregkingston)
13th March 2016, 6:48
That’s the spirit!!!
ColdFly F1 (@)
13th March 2016, 9:02
I’m also in countdown mode @mickey18.
bull mello (@bullmello)
13th March 2016, 7:40
Every time I see another Red Bull whinging headline I try to imagine who could buy the team and relieve them, us and all of F1 of this misery.
Hard to even imagine at this point, it would surely be a crazy gamble.
Nick (@npf1)
13th March 2016, 9:52
With Sergio Marchionne wanting to get Alfa Romeo back in F1, imagine this; Ferrari supplies engines to Red Bull for a year or so, Didi finally gets tired of F1, Marchionne sweeps in and brands RBR the Alfa Romeo F1 team. That’d be one great way to get the Alfa Romeo brand back in F1.
markp
13th March 2016, 11:20
I keep thinking this but like their road cars were delayed as they have to be built in Italy they may buy the entry but would not be based in Milton Keynes. Thats why I think it is Torro Rosso they would want.
Who would buy Red Bull? Who is not in WEC but big enough and not part of the VAG Group? Ford, GM, BMW…can anyone imagine any of these?
TheF1Engineer (@thef1engineer)
13th March 2016, 8:32
As much as Mateschitz may moan, and Horner, Newey and Marko besides, ultimately, the engine situation is NOT Mercedes and Ferrari’s fault, its the FIA’s and FOM’s.
At the end of the day, the FIA and FOM should have spec-ed an engine that was able to be R&D’d, built, supplied, supported and all the other trimmings, by an independent manufacturer on a commercial basis (or for a fixed amount of money).
You can’t blame Ferrari and Mercedes for not wanting to hand over their works-spec power units. I certainly don’t. And I’d certainly argue they shouldn’t have to either.
Ultimately, this will all get sorted out when the current “era” comes to an end and we revert to simpler engines, but still with lots of energy recovery going on, a V6 turbo (maybe twin) with more KERS most probably.
In the meantime, the only realistic way I can see of getting Honda and Renault competitive in a relatively short space of time, is to start allocating energy, fuel and fuel-flow in such a way that the more electrical horsepower you are creating, the less fuel you get for the race, and vice versa.
If you give the same options to ALL the teams, at least that’s fair, therefore no-one could really complain.
ColdFly F1 (@)
13th March 2016, 9:13
@thef1engineer, agree! Except I would be even more precise.
The blame lays squarely with FIA; they are responsible for the technical and sporting regulations. They should have written up something which could be seen as a level and stable playing field. And then stand by it.
If FOM tries to go beyond its commercial remit, then FIA should have stopped them there, even if this could mean that FOM takes the brand F1 somewhere else.
But I think FIA has long been blinded by all the cash over the years, and solely sings to BE’s tunes.
TheF1Engineer (@thef1engineer)
13th March 2016, 11:43
Yep entirely correct. I bring in FOM as although they are not responsible for the sporting and technical regulations, they certainly are responsible for all of the commercial agreements that govern the sport, and we all know how much dangling that financial carrot can skew your views in F1 ;).
davey (@djdaveyp87)
13th March 2016, 9:04
Let them go. We can redistribute their prize money to a more worthy team. I can’t stand their whining.
Nick (@npf1)
13th March 2016, 9:57
What I find hard to understand about the current complaints that Ferrari and Mercedes have too much power, is that the situation in the early 2000s was exactly the same. Only then, the teams in charge were Ferrari, McLaren and Williams. Smaller teams would often complain that Williams and McLaren conspired against them, leading to rule changes favourable to bigger teams.
Was Benetton/Renault complaining at the time? Hardly. The voice of anger then was Paul Stoddart, who few in the paddock took very seriously, despite saving Minardi. People tended to ridicule him like they do now with Monisha Kaltenborn, though arguably Paulo at least didn’t contract 4 drivers for 2 seats at any time..
I’m not saying ‘don’t complain now because you didn’t complain 10 years ago’, but rather try to take on the inherit power struggle in F1, rather than shift blame to the teams who happen to be in vogue with the FIA/FOM.
NewVerstappenFan (@jureo)
13th March 2016, 10:07
Here is one…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTuXIWEMrN4
Turns out Indy is lightyears behind F1 with aero. You can just take one look at it and see how primitive it is… But there is a but… they let camera crews in to the garage, detail filming of car parts…. Unlike F1 where all is covered up.
I dont get why Ted’s Notebook for example does not go inside garage run around car show all zecrets for the fans?
Before anyone mentions spy reasons… any team has access to detailed photos of cars from all angles so there would be no secret a journalist could reveal… and even if some secrets are revealed… it only serves to bring competition toggether. This is the kind of fan access F1 should have…
So Aero design F1 1 Indy 0. But fan access F1 0 Indy 1…
On Wehrlein… havent heard this much smack from since Verstappen was introduced. :D Exciting, I have watched some DTM races and he has some magic. Lets see what he does in newly competitive Manor… if he pulls any Joules magic… he’s fit for F1 in my view. Real question is Lewis and Nico are a walking timebomb… team principal needs some stick to wiggle at them. “Look here boys any more of this stuff.. our car is good enough, we can kick one of you out and have Pascal a go.” I am sure this is the message.
Secondary objective for sure is driver development. Last driver to win a championship and wasn’t a major part of the team for years before getting a drive is…. wait for it… Fernando Alonso. Everyone else we could argue were babysited by teams from young age onwards. Most notably Lewis and Sebastian… both part of development programs from a young age. Mercedes simply needs to step up their game in this department until like Red Bull, they have 4 capable drivers in F1 under their contract and fit to be world champions of opportunity presents itself.
GT Racer (@gt-racer)
13th March 2016, 13:11
@jureo “I dont get why Ted’s Notebook for example does not go inside garage run around car show all zecrets for the fans?”
Because they have to be given permission by the team to film inside the garage & a lot of the teams don’t like letting anyone in to film the cars in any detail in case some aspect of the car they are trying to hide gets spotted & copied by others.
With Indycar been a spec series nowadays there isn’t really much need to hide the cars because every team has access to the technical details of each bodykit. Back in the 90s when development was more open you did get teams throwing covers over areas of the car that they had developed themselves much as you get in F1 today.
Yes its true that you can get shots of the cars when they are out on track but there are areas of the car that are much harder to get really detailed images of as they are out on track (The floor, diffuser & underside of the car for instance) & its a lot easier in general to get close-up really detailed images as cars are sitting stationary in the pits/paddock/garage.
Meffy
13th March 2016, 14:27
@jureo If Wehrlein is destined for Mercedes, will it be alongside Hamilton? Touchy subject but would it fit Mercedes’ overall marketing strategy to have an all-colored lineup? If not, he must wait 3 years till Hamilton’s contract expires, and that seems a bit long time to spend at Manor so Force India next then?
Interesting though how Wehrlein will be judged as much on team development as driving performance. This is the new reality for F1 drivers.
DB-C90 (@dbradock)
13th March 2016, 11:20
Less than a week to go and we start getting answers to all those questions.
I for 1 am excited.
As for team owners talking about engines – they have a point (one that Ron Dennis made) – thinks are very skewed towards Mercedes and Ferrari currently. I doubt Frank Williams really wants to be competing for 3rd at best either but that seems to be the shape of things.
RaceProUK (@)
13th March 2016, 12:01
Then it’s up to Honda and Renault to make engines of equal quality.
Aldoid
13th March 2016, 16:16
Exactly. This mythical hostage situation that Ferrari & Mercedes have allegedly created simply does not exist. Merc & Ferrari don’t need to be handicapped, Honda & Renault need to do a better job, plain & simple! Ferrari were just as bad, & they worked themselves out of trouble & into race wins & 2nd place in the championship by year 2… their testing form suggests they’ve improved again. Engine parity can also be achieved if those doing a shyte job step their game up.
RaceProUK (@)
13th March 2016, 23:24
And let’s not forget, back in the 80s when McLaren-Honda was at peak strength, no-one was claiming they were holding F1 to ransom, and no-one was asking for them to be handicapped. Similarly, no-one did the same when Lotus were so strong in the 70s.
The balance of power in F1 shifts all the time; give it a few years, and it’ll naturally move away from Merc and Ferrari, likely towards McLaren and Renault. And then it’ll shift again, and again, and again, and again, and again, ad infinitum.
DB-C90 (@dbradock)
13th March 2016, 23:46
But its not “just” the engines which is why Mclaren went to Honda, it’s the software and the fuels that are being used to limit customer cars.
That’s where they have and will maintain their advantage.
I agree Honda and in particular Renault (who tried and failed for 2 years) need to improve their engines but unless teams are given the same package (or are allowed to develop their own peripherals) there is and will continue to be an advantage to the engine manufacturing teams.
RaceProUK (@)
14th March 2016, 1:02
So when Williams stated in no uncertain terms that they get exactly the same equipment as Mercedes, they were lying? I’m glad you know the details of the Mercedes engine contract better than the people who signed it or the lawyers who notarised it.
Arnold Triyudho Wardono (@ernietheracefan)
13th March 2016, 13:46
Oriol Servia will replaces Will Power in the race..(Will is sick)