Sebastian Vettel, Nico Rosberg, Albert Park, 2016

Ferrari yet to reveal true potential – Wolff

F1 Fanatic round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Mercedes chief Toto Wolff warns that the team’s closest rival Ferrari is yet to show what it’s capable of.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

My brother @therealswizzz. Thank you for everything. 🙏🏾 #family #NYC

A photo posted by Lewis Hamilton (@lewishamilton) on

Comment of the day

My sentiments entirely:

I admire Sauber’s effort to stay in a sport that doesn’t give them the respect they deserve.

There’s still time to join in this week’s Caption Competition:

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Roberttty!

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

Sebastian Vettel won the Malaysian Grand Prix five years ago today while both Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso received penalties.

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

  • 89 comments on “Ferrari yet to reveal true potential – Wolff”

    1. Why does Bernie hate Mercedes-Benz so much?! There must be a reason, or else he wouldn’t come out the clap-trap as quoted above.

      1. Because they supply 4 other teams. And that is too much power swaying away from Bernie.

      2. It is something I have struggled to understand. This is a car company that boldly, stepped in to compete as a full team not just engine supplier, at a time the sport needed new teams and interests. Their investment in the sport increased the value of the sport ending up making Bernie, CVC and co even richer.
        Before Mercedes came in, Bernie and co were already used to changing rules every couple of years and so the displeasure with Mercedes for doing a good job based on rules which EVERYONE agreed to and subsequently winning races, which incidentally is nothing new in F1, is ridiculous.
        Bernie’s near constant and vocal raging against the success of Mercedes which by the way has lasted only 2 years, is no longer a thing of shock because we have all seen how far he can go to make sure Mercedes in stopped. The whole qualification debacle which the sport was thrown into this year is proof of it.
        Bernie it seems doesn’t mind dragging the sport through the mud just to stop Mercedes and hand winnings back to, you guessed right, Ferrari or Redbull. Those two teams are Formula 1 to him. Eff every other team.
        And because of this, I strongly root for Mercedes and hope they build a monster car with the new rules they are introducing and have all agreed to yet again in 2017. And I hope they keep Nico and Lewis as the new rules comes into play. I would like to see Bernie either go away in shame or drag the sport down with him.

      3. It could be as simple as “they’re german”. He’s certainly old enough to remember the Blitz. Or perhaps it’s because Germany took him to court over the F1 sale. Maybe he doesn’t like Toto. Or maybe Lauda annoyed him in 1976 by not racing in Japan. Or maybe he’s concerned that someone might notice Ferrari is making a lot more money than Mercedes or Red Bull, even though Ferrari hasn’t won a championship since 2008.

    2. I am tired of Merc people trying to convince F1 followers that there is competition going on
      This year will be worse version of 2014 and 2015
      In the period 2009-2013 other teams were able to win and RedBull could not challenge in terms of top speed and other inventions like double diffuser and F-duct etc

      1. @malik

        This year will be worse version of 2014 and 2015

        It would be quite an achievement if we actually managed to have a season even worse than 2015.

        I think so far the racing has been better, albeit Merc still being the clear best car.

        In the period 2009-2013 other teams were able to win and RedBull could not challenge in terms of top speed

        Top speed doesn’t really mean anything anymore. Mercedes are rarely as fast as Williams in a straight line. Downforce and mechanical grip are still the king in F1.

        From 2009-2013, apart from Monza, no other circuit particularly rewarded top speed with significant lap time gains. Even around Spa and Montreal, Red Bull were generally very fast.

        1. @kingshark, as you say, top speed as a metric is fairly worthless when Red Bull intentionally chose to be gearing limited at most circuits instead of drag limited. It was an intentional decision by Red Bull not to run a longer 7th gear ratio – you could see on the inboard footage that they were hitting the rev limiter before the end of the straights at most circuits – because they focussed on other performance differentiators instead.

          1. this. they were going for a higher average speed along the straight. even at monza in 2011 the red bulls were a long way down on v-max but they hit their high speeds much earlier in the straights than cars with higher top speeds.

            i think the lack of torque, efficiency and driveability is really what’s hampering red bull in this engine era.

      2. RaceProUK (@)
        10th April 2016, 0:46

        So you’re tired of Mercedes being humble?

        1. Is it really humility?

    3. Bernie is 80% out of touch, MSC and RBR not dominant? Please.

      Other than that saturday race, excellent idea, and have qualifying during So driver coaching… Lewis said similar on Sky F1 aswell how driver psychologists are bull and driver coaching has no place in F1.

      But paychologist in me tends to think this is his desire to get a sports psychologist… Maybe even a driver coach. Judging by his last two starts seems like he could use a driver coach…. Maybe someone focused on launching.

      Drivers have physio coaches, health coaches… Why not a driver coach? It is the essential part of any top sportsman (or woman) to have an experienced person looking over them.

      Is he implying Nico Rosberg has driver coach? Well what ever he has 5 wins in a row show its working.

      Romain Grosjean has a psycholgist on his team for last 3 years.. And look at him now 2x in a row F1fanatic(we all agree authority on f1) driver of the weekend winner. Few years ago he rivaled Maldonado in crash of the weekend. So it is working for him.

      Infact driver coaching is working for everyone, that is why radio coaching was banned during the race.

      If I wanted to be a world champion driver I would at minimum get a driver coach. Seems like a nobrainer, but there is a stigma attached to it in F1… While all other sports moved on way past that years ago…P1-3. Reverse grid for saturday….

      Nico has a good point… If teams cannot derive downforce in a way to help overtaking… Better not have to much of it then.

      If F1 2017 regulations are as good and well thought as 2016 quali. .. What we see now is performance converging due to stable regulations…

      1. Humble appologies my browser combined two posts…

      2. Michael Brown
        10th April 2016, 2:17

        What’s the issue with coaches and psychologists? If I want to be a better musician, I take music lessons. I think even the people who manage to make it to the top on their talent without help still need it to do their absolute best.

      3. maarten.f1 (@)
        10th April 2016, 6:39

        @jureo While it may seem as if Bernie is out of touch, I don’t think he is at all. The things he says, about domination, about the engines, qualifying. They’re all bargaining chips, and in that context they should be read. Take whatever he says with a grain of salt, or at least consider that there’s a hidden reason he’s saying it. Bernie may be old, he may have some pretty stupid ideas, but that man is very skilled at getting what he wants.

        1. Unfortunately what BE wants is not always the right thing for what the fans want.

      4. I’m liking the Saturday race instead of a more traditional timed qualifying session too. I think that could be a lot of fun, and a good way to get the younger audience in the door.

        Something like, start in reverse WDC order, 22 cars, 22 laps, open pit-lane, where you finish = where you start the grand prix. Nice and simple. Maybe even have a rolling start as something to set it apart from the grand prix a bit further?

        As an added bonus, if you make the big teams have to OVERTAKE for better grid position, the teams will naturally simplify their aero, and the FIA/FOM can therefore avoid World War III with the technical regulations :).

    4. RaceProUK (@)
      10th April 2016, 0:49

      “When Michael (Schumacher) was winning a lot of races and world championships and Red Bull as well, it never seemed as if any of those teams were dominating Formula One.”

      Didn’t Schumacher win a world title at the French Grand Prix in one of those years? Didn’t Vettel win nine races in a row also? How is that not domination?

      1. What’s a French Grand Prix?

        1. huehuehue

      2. I laughed my head off reading his words. That’s just nonsence.
        I’m just curious if he’s trying to look stupid for a purpose or is it just senility.

      3. It was all domination. At the time people were complaining the same. Mercedes-Benz have done the best job my only aside is the token systems which delays catching Mercs main advantage but that’s gone next year so if a team has a complete new engine ready then they can use it. Next year no excuses bit this year when Ferrari sort the reliability we should have a great battle.

      4. ColdFly F1 (@)
        10th April 2016, 2:31

        domination: like the greener grass on the other side, domination is always darker when you are currently on the receiving end.
        People tend to forget about domination as soon as it’s behind them (except of course for Mosley, who was reminded of his session for years to come).

        1. But that did happen behind old Max.

          1. What made the MS/Ferrari the worst time of domination probably I’m the history of F1 is that there was no competition between the two drivers, by contract, so not only was a Ferrari expected to get pole and win, we also were shown very blatantly that it was only all about MS, thus robbing the fans of racing in the pinnacle of racing.

            So Max and Bernie orchestrated the whole MS/Ferrari thing, formed rules to ensure they stayed on top, and when teams complained they were told it is up to them to compete, which in turn is what guaranteed rising costs to compete and the increased struggle for the smaller teams that we still have to this day.

            So incredibly typical, hypocritical, and disingenuine for BE to now claim Mercedes hard earned success is worse. I honour them for letting their two drivers compete while they dominate. Without that component, where would we be now? BE’s bs is so transparent, and he’s not fooling anyone.

            1. @robbie “formed rules to ensure they stayed on top,”

              The rules were actually changed several times during that era to try & hinder Ferrari’s success.

              The changes in 2003 were introduced to mix things up & try & hinder Ferrari’s success based off fan complaints about Ferrari dominance in 2002.
              And the changes introduced for 2005, Especially the banning of mid-race tyre changes were again done to mix things up & hinder Ferrari after fans again complained about there dominance in 2004.
              Even some of the small tweaks made for 2002 were done to try & close the field up after Schumacher had a relatively easy time wrapping up the title in 2001.

              If the aim during that era was to help Ferrari retain an advantage the best thing to do would have been to leave things alone as given the advantage they had in 2002 & again in 2004 & where there strengths were had nothing changed they would have been much stronger in 2003 & 2005 than they were because of the rule changes.

            2. @gt-racer I contend that any rule changes made under the guise of stopping or slowing the MS/Ferrari train were superficial and Ferrari were consulted first and foremost before anyone even knew changes (read small tweeks) were being proposed. So Ferrari got to approve any changes behind closed doors first, which also gave them a head start at adapting to said changes, thus staying one step ahead. It is interesting that you cite changes starting in 2002, which was some 6 years after the MS/Ferrari deal started, and again in 05 when he had already won 4 in a row…mission already accomplished. Teams had been complaining all along about this, so F1 leaving things alone was not an option, but instead they made minor changes that barely made MS/Ferrari waiver, but acted as token ‘action’ on the part of F1 to appear to be doing something.

            3. @robbie, at the same time, it could be argued that the lack of regulatory changes in certain years should have been more beneficial for other teams.

              For example, the MP4/14 had been considered to be the fastest car in the field in 1999, with the expectation in the off season that the MP4/15, which was an evolution of the MP4/14, would retain that advantage in 2000. Under that scenario, that lack of regulatory change between 1999 and 2000 should have been to McLaren’s benefit, given they started off from a more favourable position, rather than to Ferrari’s benefit.

            4. Don’t let the truth that Ferrari in that period were the best get in the way of blind dislike for the most important single entity within F1. If anything whoever came up with the best engine in 2014 was guaranteed a number of titles due to the token system. Thankfully that is gone next year.

            5. @anon True, but let’s not forget Ferrari’s ongoing advantage at the time, of unlimited testing at two tracks exclusively, one of them with a Bridgi headquarters right on site from what I understand. So, adding up the extra revenues they were getting just because, the unlimited testing, the virtual exclusivity with Bridgi, the contracts for MS’s teammates to not compete which was a massive physical and psychological barrier removed, the extra weight they had on the voting board as well as the veto power…hard to beat all that from mere stability in the rules.

    5. “We know that to go quicker we need more downforce which is what we are aiming for and with more downforce it is more difficult to follow other cars. We know that, that is a fact.”

      The 2017 rule changes make zero sense to me. It’s generally accepted that the difference in engine performance is the reason to why this current era is so noncompetitive. Mercedes are clearly ahead of Ferrari, who in return are clearly ahead of Renault and Honda.

      There is absolutely nothing wrong with the aero regulations. Perhaps they could bring back higher noses which allowed the cars to follow closer more easily (like from 2011-13), otherwise the current aero regs are fine.

      The cars are already fast enough as they are. They have incredible acceleration and top speed, and are reasonably fast though the corners. Hamilton did a 1’23.8 around Melbourne (just 0.3 s slower than the lap record) and a 1’29.4 around Bahrain (the fastest lap ever around the circuit).

      Making the cars 4-5 seconds a lap faster makes zero sense. Bringing back low rear wings (ala 2005-08), large curved front wings, and monumentally increasing downforce will do absolutely nothing other than ruin close wheel-to-wheel combat and making a lot of circuits on the current F1 calendar futile for good racing.

      The new regulations in 2009 were specifically brought into place to allow cars to follow one another more closely. Now F1 has decided to go back regulations where you’d see about 10 overtakes on average per dry race.

      Honestly, is there anyone on this site who supports the 2017 regulation changes?

      1. Is there anyone on this site who has actually seen the 2017 regulations? As far as I know they haven’t been finalized and ones that have been publically proposed have been withdrawn already.

      2. Unfortunately, yes, there are people that support the 2017 regulations, and it just happens they are the ones who voted in these changes.

      3. 2017 regulations are not only to make it competitive, main objective is to make cars much faster. Obviously Merc’s are worried that they might lose some advantage with these new DF regulations, coz new regulations almost every time ended domination. Lap times are faster coz straight line speeds are high due to narrower front wings, but this new DF regulations will make cars faster in turns as well which will bring down laptimes even more.

        1. @f1007 It’s already been said that top speed will be lower than they currently are, they will just spend the same or slightly less time on the straights because of the added speed they will be able to carry out of the corners. You cant add downforce to a car and go faster in a straight line without increasing engine power significantly, which they aren’t doing. Therefore cars top speeds will be lower by about 10-15kmph according the recent reports.

          1. @woodyd91 of course they will be slower coz of added DF, no body is denying that, yes pat symonds already said they will be 10kph slower on straights. They are trying to make cars faster by making them faster thru corners, for that you need DF and they will gain more time than they lose on straights.

      4. @kingshark, there have certainly been a fair number of posters on this site who have repeatedly complained that the cars are too slow and that there should be a much larger performance gap between F1 and other series, leading to pressure on the sport to speed the cars up.

      5. The aero part of the 2017 rule changes belong in the bin.

        Keep the wider tyres, re-design the suspension, leave the rest alone!

        A proper testing programme for Pirelli, together with a mandate from the FOM/FIA to produce proper performance, racing tyres, and there’s a good 4-5 seconds there in pure mechanical grip, and that’s what we all want.

        I’d back raising the nose. IMO, it should be the same height as the rear crash structure. They’re currently to low. You raise the nose, you get more air underneath the car, which then opens the door for utilising more ground effect and getting away from complex wings, which is what the “aero” part of these regulations should be encouraging.

        1. What about larger floor, larger and highe angle diffuser and increased barge board size of the new regulation changes (proposed) do you disagree with?

          I’m sure you also understand that the slanted back rear wing placed the final wing element above and behind the trailing edge of the diffuser which greatly enhances the diffuser performance.

          Why would anyone ‘bin’ such logical aero regulations?

          and I agree Pirelli needs to make a proper tire.

      6. A contributing factor with regard to the lack of overtaking during the 2005-2008 period (and before) was refuelling. Which allowed teams to opt for sprint races..

        I’m not saying that the increased downforce won’t affect the overtake opportunities (we already know it does and cause greater tyre wear and increased PU/Braking issues)…

        1. When do people think that the rules allowed the best balance between downforce, ability to follow he car in front and speed then? There must have been a time when this was better than it is now. Or not? I don’t know and my technical knowledge is not good enough to form an opinion.

    6. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      10th April 2016, 1:23

      I don’t think we can blame Mercedes for being so dominant – it’s the 3rd year with the new engines and they are actually the only engine manufacturer that doesn’t have a hybrid supercar and yet they are beating Ferrari which built the LaFerrari and McLaren that built the P1 (granted Honda is the engine supplier). They worked very hard to reach the point they are at and they put together a stellar team across the board.

      Ferrari only have themselves to blame for not being competitive. The same goes for Honda and McLaren. Red Bull seems to be doing the right thing this year – it’s insane how competitive they are with the Renault engines.

      1. Merc may have started work on this engine before others and put more money in to it. That’s to there cleverness but to then restrict changes with token ring fences this advantage for a few years. This would be an advantage no team has ever enjoyed. Next year no tokens and that will be great for the competition, bet Honda already are designing a brand new engine same as Renault and Ferrari will make more changes than would otherwise be allowed. Merc needed the token systemy as they are most famous the for diesel taxis.

        1. The token system wasn’t Mercedes idea, it was something the FIA came up with. They wanted to contain the cost of the new V6 power units, so they introduced the token system to try and stop costs getting out of control. I think the big problem with this system was each year there were to be less tokens than the year before, meaning a manufacturer who’s engine was underpowered would find it more and more difficult to catch a manufacturer who had an above average power unit.
          It was pretty obvious from the start that tokens would mean those that had would get more and those that didn’t would get less.

          1. Mercedes advantage stems from them already having a substantial hybrid infrastructure in place within the company.

            When the F1 guys were building the car, they were constantly on the phone to the 250,000 odd people in Stuttgart who’ve been researching hybrid for at least the last half decade, and therefore have all the R&D technology, software and machinery to boot. Ferrari, Renault, Honda, were nowhere near as well resourced out of the blocks.

            For all intents and purposes, it’s like the Wright Brothers competing against Frank Whittle, and now we’re seeing those 3 try to play catch-up on Merc’s essential 5+ year headstart. I doubt it’ll happen tbh, unless those 3 fancy throwing the thick end of a billion into accelerating their development curve as such that it’s more aggressive than Mercedes.

            1. It will happen as info gets out there. Merc had to invent the info others can copy the bits they like so performance equalisation will occur faster. They were restricted by tokens from next year no tokens.

              Tokens also mean no new manufacturer could really enter but next year they can, spend a year learning and using the knowledge for a new engine the following year. There are big teams who need an engine partner, manufacturers have some decent teams to pair with like Williams or Red Bull.

    7. Red Bull could win with a Mercedes engine, Ferrari could win with a Red Bull chassis, Hamilton could win with any other drivers starts…

      But you know who is winning? Mercedes. Because they looked at the formula, and came up with the best solution to build an engine and chassis in harmony. Ferrari are second, because they are following the formula of building an engine and chassis in harmony. Renault have embraced being a full manufacturer because building an engine and chassis in harmony is the key. McLaren are suffering the pain of trying to build an engine and chassis in harmony.

      And Red Bull. Well they’re still trying to find a solution to not having to build an engine because they looked at the formula and got their solution wrong. It’s a shame Red Bull aren’t at the pointy end, I wish they had a good engine to bring the fight. But should we upset the goals of the 4 power unit makers to appease one privateer team?

      1. It’s not about Red Bull. Jean and Bernie want control of the sport back, and they’re only going to get that if they control the engines. This is why they’re welcoming the EU investigation, Bernie inparticular. They want the instruction from the EU, “you have to tear that up,” relating to the Strategy Group. They get that instruction, it’s goodbye power units, at least in their current configuration.

        For what it’s worth, I think Bernie and the FIA WILL get that instruction. The FIA already aren’t in the EU’s good books for buying a 1% stake in the commercial rights which they were explicitly told to sell off, and the Strategy Group has anti-competition written all over it.

        Red Bull are simply a PR tool and a pretty effective one at that, regardless of whether you agree with what they’re saying or not. They’re a customer team with a manufacturer’s budget, and as such, serve as the perfect team for Bernie to align himself with in the pursuit of change.

        Bernie has always been clear on manufacturers. They come in when it suits them and they leave when it suits them. F1 wasn’t built on manufacturers. It was built on the likes of Frank Williams, Ken Tyrrell, Colin Chapman, Gordon Murray building cars/teams, and having access to independent engines from the likes of Cosworth so they could take those cars racing.

        Pretty hard to disagree with that tbh.

        1. @thef1engineer

          If what you’re saying is true, it looks like Bernie will eventually emerge from this triumphant.

          It always impresses me how he manages to be so many moves ahead of his opponents whilst making his famously outspoken comments at the same time.

          Like him or not, he has the best Teflon coat outside the world of the technology of modern frying pans.

          1. Bernie and the FIA.

            Bernie is a master of the mis-direct. It’s that simple.

            He knows how to negotiate deals, and perhaps more crucially, he knows how to negotiate his way OUT of deals.

            Whatever Bernie offers up as a headline, be it qualifying, double points, time ballast etc, IGNORE IT! It’s crap, he know’s it crap, we all know it’s crap. It’s simply a mis-direct which the media sink their teeth into, and subsequently the fans, meanwhile, the real power-play is going on in the background.

            It’s like chess. Do you worry about the pawns? Not really. You worry about the power pieces.

            1. He does know what he is doing going from car salesman to billionaire, he knows how to deal with people. If he gets control back it may not be that bad, to many the 80s and 90s when he had most the power were rather good according to many. It gets messy when everyone has a say, in this context I get his dictator comments from a while back.

            2. It’ll be fine.

              The only item Bernie and Jean will force through will be a simpler, cheaper engine. A lot of the problems in F1 stem from the power units, but once we have engines all within a few horsepower of each other, 90% of F1’s problem’s will go away.

            3. @thef1engineer

              “Bernie and the FIA”.

              But if the FIA get their knuckles wrapped for buying that 1% of the commercial rights (something which is a clear conflict of interest from my point of view), Bernie will be on top of the pile. Again. Unbelievable…

            4. Exactly :).

              It’s easy to slam the bloke, and plenty of people do, but when it counts he’s still sharper than most, even at 85.

            5. I have always said Bernie is the smartest man in F1. There will be text books written about Bernienomics and studied at Ivy League business schools.

              I have faith in F1 fans but it really makes me cringe when people react so strongly to something Bernie says in the press. It’s pointless and a waste of time. He’s either lying or it’s a distraction – and its really beautiful if you can appreciate it, however odd or evil it may seem.

              We’re only talking about cars going in circles paid for by billionaires anyways.

        2. @thef1engineer My understanding was that the two teams’ complaint to the EU was to cite the unfair distribution of money in F1. I’m not sure the result of the EU’s findings is going to have anything to do with PU’s. With Ferrari getting closer, as well as successfully supplying the likes of Haas, and talk of Renault and Honda also potentially getting closer at least for next year with the added time they’ll have and the dropping of tokens, it doesn’t seem to me to make sense that the EU would affect the alteration of what F1 is doing with pu’s. And then there is the huge costs that need to be considered in now scrapping or heavily altering the Pu’s and the chassis changes that would also then be needed.

          So I see the goal of the complainants as getting a fairer distribution of money toward them, not to try to get the EU to affect the technical side of F1 which, regarding PU’s, is already being addressed.

          1. The complaint is about the governance structure of F1 AND the division of revenues. Unfair and unlawful I believe are/were the words. This is an anti-competition complaint after all.

            Now obviously, if the governance structure is instructed to be “torn up,” that’s the Strategy Group gone, Bernie and Jean back in control, which is most definitely what they both want, and they’ve both made their views quite clear on what they want from the power units. You’ll remember that mandate which was doing the rounds at the start of the year.

            The power units may well be converging, but even if they had the exact same performance, that’s not the EU’s concern. The EU’s concern is whether certain teams making the rules is anti-competitive or not. The move away from power units, at least in their current configuration, will come from Bernie and Jean if the manufacturer’s don’t play ball, not the EU.

            Those costs, if the EU do indeed make the order, is something the manufacturers have to bear in mind in their negotiating position. As I see it, they essentially have 3 choices;
            1.) Wait around until 2020 when all these contracts expire and then Bernie/Jean will impose their own engine spec.
            2.) Negotiate for an engine spec before 2020 that keeps as much of the current hybrid tech as possible under Jean/Bernie’s T&C’s, most probably on the back of an EU “recommendation.”
            3.) Quit.

            Any which way, Jean and Bernie get what they want. It’s just a question of when, not if.

            1. @thef1engineer Fair comment. I went back and reread some of the articles on this topic. I still maintain that the main issue seems to be about the money distribution, but you are right that some of this is about governance…namely from what power the Strategy Group of teams has, which includes one of the complainants Force India, but not governors FIA, FOM, or BE.

              The gist of what I have read is that it may take until Christmas just for the EU to even decide to launch an investigation, at which point BE will have a chance to appease the EU if he so chooses, in order to stave off a lengthy investigation. I surmise that the degree of appeasement, if BE even wants to go that route, will depend on what lengths the EU feels they will need to go and/or how much of a case they feel they will have. Or BE could just drag it on and let them do their investigating. He doesn’t seemed concerned at all based on the fact that the teams signed up for this deal to begin with and so the complainants went into it eyes wide open. Kaltenborn’s contention is that they didn’t know everything when they signed, just the basics.

              Anyway it seems to me it is way too premature to be discussing things being ‘torn up.’ We don’t even know if the EU is going to consider there is even enough to launch an investigation. And if they do, and BE is hoping for this so he can take back control as you speculate, it seems he would have to run that change of governance by the EU first. If that means driving up costs again by scrapping the current PU formula, that may not fly either, after teams will have already spent billions on R&D.

              Anyway it’s very convoluted but I certainly won’t be holding my breath that there even will be an investigation let alone what the net result will be and when.

            2. Yes of course, that’s the main issue, or the headline issue if you like, but since the Strategy Group includes the FIA (Jean) and FOM (Bernie) by virtue of their 6 votes each, together with the 6 teams 1 vote each, the effects of that are of more interest to Bernie and Jean than the financial side.

              Bernie’s encouraging the EU because he want’s control back ASAP, there aren’t really that many if’s, but’s or maybe’s about it tbh. The only real question is, “is there enough evidence?”

              This is where the qualifying debacle comes in. The EU are monitoring F1, and Bernie and Jean very deliberately and very publically demonstrated just how broken the governance structure is by trying to change between qualifying formats. It was never about the qualifying, it was about very clearly demonstrating how the governance system works, or rather, how it doesn’t.

              Bernie’s not concerned because worst case scenario, he and Jean get control of Formula 1 back. I doubt anyone’s going to jail over it. It’ll be a slap on the wrist, a fine, and sort your governance out.

              2020, so 4 years, is the absolute longest these power units will remain, and that time will fly.

              The costs of a new engine won’t be driven up because the FIA and FOM already have engines in the offing from their call for “expressions of interest” in supplying an independent engine. In the space of a fortnight, they had responses from 4 manufacturers who’d supply for 7-8 million, as a demonstration to the manufacturers that alternatives are available if necessary.

              I wouldn’t be that worried about costs. These things are R&D projects at the end of the day, that you, I and the general public will pay for when we buy hybrid road cars in the future.

              LOL don’t blame ya. Nothing moves particularly fast out of Brussels :D.

            3. @thef1engineer Again, fair comment.

      2. @philipgb So what you are saying is that Red Bull are being limited by a lack of competitive suppliers in F1 whereas Ferrari and Hamilton are being limited by their own faults – not the faults of others?

        I don’t like Red Bull any more than anyone else but it’s clear they are being artificially held back by being forced to use Renault engines.

        It’d be like if we went back to a tyre war and Pirelli carried on with the tyres they have currently and Bridgestone brought in actual fit-for-purpose racing tyres and agreed to supply everyone except Mercedes.

        1. @petebaldwin

          Potato potato.

          F1 has a rule book which lays out the formula and a goal. Red Bull looked at the rulebook, and made decisions which have seen them be less competitive than the decisions that Mercedes and Ferrari have made.

          A race has rules and a goal, Hamilton has made race decisions which have seen him be less competitive than Rosberg.

          Red Bull are in F1 for a purpose and that purpose doesn’t really make sense to include engine development. Mercedes purpose does. The rules do lean towards favouring an engine builder, but they also bring more into the sport by supplying the privateers than Red Bull do.

    8. ColdFly F1 (@)
      10th April 2016, 2:48

      Bernie does not understand his own rules.(actually it is the FIA rules)
      A WCC is the constructor of both chassis and engine which gets the most points. The engine is as important in this as the chassis. In this great sport of ours it is not enough to just acquire/develop the best chassis, you also need to acquire/develop the best PU. Both are as important
      This saying that Red Bull would win with a Mercedes engine is equal to saying that MRT (we know they have a Mercedes engine) would win with a Red Bull chassis. Both true; both not really saying a lot!

      1. I agree with your definition of a constructor word for word. Who was the 2st team to win a title with someone else’s engine? The 1st decade of F1 teams made engine and chassis. BRM made their own engines. With McLaren building a road car business I am surprised they never consider making their own to compete marketing wise with Ferrari.

        1. The first constructor to win a title with somebody else’s engine was Cooper(-Climax), in 1959, which, given that it was the second year the Constructor’s championship had existed, seems like a fairly thorough endorsement of customer engines to me.

          (Had the constructor’s title existed before 1958, you could argue that the answer to the question would be Ferrari, though the question of who the Lancia D50 really belonged to by 1956 is a bit of an open debate).

          1. Nothing wrong with customer engines but teams that build their engine have every right to give themselves the best engine. The only times customer engines work is when the engine maker does not have their own team. Imagine the marketing potential for someone to come along like Ford just to supply engines, Ford powering 2 thirds of the F1 grid.

    9. Enough is enough. I’m so sick of the crap Bernie is quoted as saying, from now on I’m going to put as much effort into avoiding whatever he says as I do for Kanye West and Donald Trump.

    10. It’s clear from Bernie’s comments, every single one of them, that this guy belongs in a mental asylum for elderly people. He was once great but he has fallen. Nothing unusual in that, neither good nor bad, age catches up with everyone eventually. Not many can stay with a 100% sharp brain at 85 and that’s certainly not the case here. And no, i’m no psychiatrist but it’s obvious to a layman too. MSC and RBR didn’t feel like dominating? hahahahahaha

      1. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
        10th April 2016, 10:16

        @montreal95 Yep, get a nice brown armchair, some nice brown slippers and a copy of The Daily Mail, put them in a padded cell, and wait for nature to take its course…

        1. @william-brierty Yep. Meanwhile, seeing those crazy comments, it’s quite surprising that we don’t hear more about the CVC vampires searching for a successor. I hope it’s a good sign, that they mean to get rid of F1 soon.Probably just wishful thinking on my part

    11. I thought Bernie was starting to get senile back in 2009 when the “gold medal” idea almost was implemented but scrapped at the last minute. The fact that he’s still at it 7 years later blows my mind. I mean – he really makes no sense at all.

    12. Re Red Bull winning with Mercedes engines.
      I find this an annoying scenario. At one time McLaren had the same engine as Mercedes did and yet got just two podiums for the entire 2014 season, and that was at the first race in Melbourne. After that race Red Bull (using a Renault engine), Williams (with a Mercedes engine), and Ferrari must have put in extra effort because while Jenson Button got some fourth places, neither he nor Kevin Magnussen stood on the podium again, and McLaren ended up fifth in the Constructors Championship.
      While it is undoubted that a Red Bull – Mercedes Racing Team is credible, saying it would win is based on ignoring all the other teams in the series and how they would react.
      Currently Red Bull – TAG Heuer are running third in the Constructors’ Championship.

      1. @drycrust Neither McLaren or Williams have built a chassis as good as Red Bull in the last 10 years, so it is very likely Red Bull would win had they had a Mercedes engine.

        1. After announced PU upgrade they’ll be top contenders. It will be very interesting.

          1. We will see. I doubt it

        2. McLaren had a better chassis than Red Bull in 2007 and 2008 and that was within the past 10 years also 2012 could be argued McLaren had the faster car and as engines were about the same the chassis must have been better.

    13. Mercedes are doing what Ferrari are supposed to be doing, that’s Bernie’s problem.

      But surely even Red Bull must be saying things about pay-TV, behind the scenes. It’s a terrible idea for them and all the manufacturers and sponsors. If they joined the Merc/Ferrari conspiracy Bernie would be in serious trouble. F1 is a house of cards, after all – a brand that can evaporate in a puff of smoke come 2020.

      1. Well at least Horner was immediately publicly dismissive of the attempts to change quali.

        1. I’m guessing @robbie that Horner could see that the elimination system would leave Mercedes with the coverage all to themselves at the end of Q3 (something that escaped our octogenarian ringmaster).

    14. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
      10th April 2016, 10:12

      So when Schumacher won thirteen out of eighteen races in 2004, including the first five consecutive races, Bernie didn’t regard that as domination? But that’s the problem with us F1 fans: we are meddlesome in the way we actually use pesky things like evidence to support our assertions. Perhaps we should all just gormlessly bow and nod, perhaps then Bernie will start legislating on our behalf…

      1. Lol yup BE thinks the viewers are stupid, yet are all supposed to be wealthy Rolex owners and therefore presumably educated and successful. And the have-the-world-by-the-tail wealthy and famous F1 drivers who can afford Rolexes should not be allowed to speak. And BE who runs the show is completely blameless and just an innocent bystander with no power and it is others who have mucked it up. Typical politician.

    15. “When Michael (Schumacher) was winning a lot of races and world championships and Red Bull as well, it never seemed as if any of those teams were dominating Formula One.” – Bernie

      He certainly doesn’t bother to hide his disdain for mercedes; does he?

    16. “When Michael (Schumacher) was winning a lot of races and world championships and Red Bull as well, it never seemed as if any of those teams were dominating Formula One.” – Bernie Ecclestone, LOL!

    17. Just a point i’d like to make regarding something I see brought up a lot.

      You often see people point to how many different winners there are in a season when talking about dominance, But I’ve always felt thats a silly way to judge the dominance a team/driver had that year because just because you may have 4-5 drivers in 3-4 teams winning in a year that doesn’t mean that all of those drivers had chances to win every weekend let alone have a realistic chance at the championship.

      Take 2001 for example, 5 drivers in 3 teams won races that year but Schumacher still dominated & won the championship 5 races before the end of the season. And at no point did it ever really look like anyone other than Schumacher was going to win the title that year because while other drivers were winning they were all giving inconsistent performances.
      Regardless of how many drivers & teams won races in 2002; Schumacher’s title win was no less dominant & no less predictable than it was in 2002 or 2004.

      1. @gt-racer Agreed and furthermore, between 2000, and 2002-2004 Reuben’s was allowed a few wins in there too, and while I realize he was a different driver than MS, I would suggest his small number of wins (none in 2001 though) didn’t add anything to the unpredictability, especially when in Austria 02, after having to cede the ‘win’ to MS with meters to go, causing a massive outcry, RB admitted he was just obeying his contract.

    18. Michael Brown
      10th April 2016, 16:39

      On domination: at least when Ferrari and Red Bull were dominating there were still more than 3 different winners per season, unlike 2014 and 2015. It’s still too early to tell if there’s going to be another season like that this year.

      1. @Michael Brown ”there were still more than 3 different winners per season” – Wrong, in 2002 Ferrari won 15 out of 17, so all but 2 races, and in 2004 all but 3 races (15 out of 18 that year).

        1. I still say too, even though we are talking about numbers of different winners and how that affected how we felt about the seasons we’re referring to in terms of variance or unpredictability, we had MS/Ferrari who were unquestionably all about MS, so, little to expect in terms of surprises, SV at Red Bull who at least appeared to be the designated number one if not with the same favouritism MS got, then from relative lack of competition from MW, and now at Mercedes we have a genuine close rivalry that I have found enthralling since it’s beginning in spite of their domination.

      2. I think it appears worse because of a massive increase in reliability (for the top teams), no gravel meaning that mistakes go unpunished and the battle coming from both Mercedes drivers rather than two different teams.

        The reliability means that they will finish 1-2 every race. There may be the odd blip but it’ll be a couple of races a season at best.

        The gravel being removed means that Hamilton or Rosberg are free to make mistakes and it’ll only cost then a few seconds.

        The only competition for Mercedes being the other Mercedes means that they can keep the cars apart with strategy – something they always do by giving the first drivers on track the call with strategy. This always results in a massive loss of time for the 2nd driver.

        With Vettel, he was often against someone in a different team which resulted in a close battle with cars trying to beat each other rather than finish in tandem.

    Comments are closed.