Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, Albert Park, 2016

Vettel and Massa want more equality between teams

F1 Fanatic round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Sebastian Vettel and Felipe Massa believe the quality of racing in Formula One would improve if the financial differences between the teams were evened out.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Some early thoughts on the race – and title battle – ahead:

Ricciardo will be up near the top in qualifying if it’s forecast to be a wet one. But he’ll struggle in the race when it comes to the long back straight with that Renault engine in the back.

As for Hamilton, I do see him finishing on the podium on Sunday if he stays out of trouble in the first five laps, that’s if he starts from sixth. But he’ll lose once again to his team mate (Rosberg) who I think will get six straight wins this Sunday. If so, I think he’ll win this year’s title.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Davidnotcoulthard and Dave W!

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

Ralf Schumacher scored his first F1 victory 15 years ago today in the 2001 San Marino Grand Prix.

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

  • 66 comments on “Vettel and Massa want more equality between teams”

    1. “I think if there was more equality between the teams we would also have better racing.”

      Bang. What more needs be said?

      1. Radically less downforce.

        1. You’d rather have less downforce than actual race tires?

          You know with even less downforce the drivers will have to drive even slower because these tires cannot handle the extra work.

          Less downforce with Pirelli compounds = no passing, everyone will be nursing their cheese tires.

      2. I actually kinda disagree. At least if by equality you mean close Performance. A difference in Lap time measured in thousands of a second will Never suffice for overtaking. It’s a bit like a Cruel joke but close performance does not mean Good racing at all- if you consider processional Racing not Good racing that is …

        1. RaceProUK (@)
          15th April 2016, 0:51

          Touring car racing often has cars that lap within a tenth or two, and they manage to overtake each other all the time, usually by pressuring the other driver into a mistake. In other words, performance advantage isn’t the only way to overtake.

          1. Touring cars have zero down force compared to the current F1 cars. Which is why they can overtake each other.

            1. the cars actually don’t loose much downforce when following, but the downforce that is lost places extra work on the tires.

              If the tires could handle a bit more work we’d see very close following – but we have these *]^}*+{% tires.

              Problem #1 is tires.

            2. They probably have 0 downforce as a total…..

              I disagree with the notion that less downforce necessarily means more stress on the tyre. In terms of both deformity and heat, I’m not sure that’s the case.

            3. Isn’t the LACK of downforce a car has when it is closely following another car one of the reasons these tyres tend to go off as fast as they do, because they are slipping around more?

            4. RaceProUK (@)
              16th April 2016, 23:37

              What has downforce got to do with equality of performance?

            5. @bascb Yes, but that is relative to the car in front. Unless you are planning to really strip F1 cars of downforce I’m not sure that it makes such a large effect as suggested in terms of more or less downforce.

      3. One of those things that is simple in theory but cannot ever happen in reality. It’s like a mix of climate of life, some have some have not and you cannot equalise it, it’s been tried and failed. F1 teams like people exist to dominate their surroundings by any means necessary. People should just get over it and accept it, the situation will never change.

        1. Or, FOM can just, you know, change it.

    2. I’m confused at the comment of the day:

      If Hamilton drives well and keeps out of trouble to salvage a podium it will show him being strong enough to take the title?

      If Rosberg takes the expected result of him cruising competently to a sixth consecutive win it will show him being strong enough to take the title?

      You could interpret it as either, though I’m thinking Rosberg was the intended one, and I’d agree.

      1. Although I do not think Rosberg will be having a “cruise to victory” with most likely both Ferrari’s close enough to push him and their “team” approach (sacrificing Kimi to give Seb a better chance) might make it hard to stay ahead, if indeed he doesn’t get passed of the line @calum.

        But yeah, Rosberg seems certainly to be in the right spot to have a good go at that championship.

      2. The facts are Rosberg can start from pole, Hamilton no higher than sixth. If Rosberg gets around the first corner ahead and then has the clean air then straight away he has an advantage over Hamilton, he will most likely push to build a gap. Whilst this is happening Hamilton will need to pass a minimum of 4 cars, this will most likely include the Ferarris which i think we can assume arent going to move over to let him pass. He passes them, possibly through the pit stops, he will have a gap to Rosberg and will need to push. He gets behind Rosberg and has more worn tyres and less downforce. This scenario is bassed on so many factors happening but i think Hamiltons race will be lost being stuck behind the Fearraris.

        The argument that this shows who is the strongest to win the title is far to early to predict. We’re in the third race and one of the main competitors has a penalty. Just go back to 2014, Hamilton was 25 points behind after the second race, then a further 29 behind mid season. Things can change so quickly, Rosberg may retire this race, or the next and so on. Same could happen to Hamilton. It is just far too early to start calling the winner of the championship.

    3. As trivial and silly as the Italian dinner article was, it was nice to read a light-hearted story involving most of the drivers.
      I especially liked the photo that Nico etc. posted on Twitter from the dinner.

    4. Brundle telling us what a ‘man’ he is again *yawn* . Sorry, but come on, when exactly does that anecdote get old?

      1. @john-h From what I see, he not bragging about himself, merely just showing how things done in his era. I personally like it so I can appreciate more what improvement in safety and risk management FIA had done. Sending people to race in F1 after only asking the date is rather irresponsible, don’t you think?

      2. ColdFly F1 (@)
        15th April 2016, 9:01

        *yawn*, exactly my first reaction @john-h.

        And Brundle is the living proof of the long term consequences of those crashes.

    5. 8 titles huh. I think we can all agree Lewis would then be the greatest ever.

      So first beat Nico once…

      Lewis is young enough to do it. But heads will roll in F1 if Mercedes is to take 5 more titles while Lewis is in peak form.

      But agaun, MSC never let any teamate beat him 6 in a row….

      1. Lol MS’s teammates were contracted to not compete so no comparison there thank goodness. I don’t mind LH but can’t call myself a fan…I’d just as soon see NR rise up and become a WDC level Champ if it is in the cards at all, but if LH does end up winning as many as 8 WDC’s I will honour those for at least legitimately beating his teammates, so so much more than MS’s.

        1. You’re kidding yourself if you think MSC had any team mates who could actually beat him. Doesn’t matter if it was in the contract or not. Barrichello, Irvine, Massa’s careers are proof to that.

          1. @evered7 No, @robbie is right. Barichello especially really have good run in the Ferrari, able to stick to Schumacher closely. Sometimes he’s actually quicker than Schumacher but played the 2nd driver card perfectly. Remember Austria 2002?

            1. That’s a terrible example. By Austria, Schumacher had 4 wins and a third. To Ruben’s 2nd.

              I’m not saying it was ok, it wasn’t, at all. I’m just saying, that’s a bad example for Rubens being burnt by being the number two. He wasn’t ever going to come back from a 38 point deficit so it made little difference. (It being so little is partially why it is so offensive that it happened.)

              P.s. Am massive Rubens fan.

            2. But most of Rubens 2nd is also because it’s obvious he can’t race Schumacher and whoever in front at the time, Schumacher will always get the optimal strategy from the team. Part of why Mercedes era is better than Schumacher Ferrari era is because we still can hope Rosberg to fight Hamilton, while Schumacher is totally one man show.

            3. @sonicslv When it comes to backing one horse over the other, I can safely say that Ferrari did the right thing in going for MSC. Rubens for all his pace was nowhere near the consistency shown by MSC.

              Rubens had his best chance in 2009 and we all know where it ended for him. To say that Rubens could have been a WDC on equal footing in Ferrari is just a joke MSC haters tell themselves.

              And I agree with Mike on that incident. Even I was perplexed as to why they did that as they had a comfortable margin over others that year.

            4. @evered7 While I agree Schumacher is better driver than Barichello but the fact that he told since day 1 of his contract signing that practically he will never compete for WDC surely have an effect on him. Schumacher never beaten in Ferrari is because his teammates is never allowed to even try in the first place and of course the unfair treatment in garage like Schumacher can see his teammate data but not the other way around.

              I never said Barichello will surely get WDC if there equal treatment in Ferrari, but I’m sure he can give good fight to Schumacher and probably still has like 30%-40% chance to get WDC instead of 0%.

              Also Barichello in 2009 is already past his prime, even the great Schumacher himself is beaten and perform rather poorly in his Mercedes run.

            5. @sonicslv You have your beliefs, I have mine. Rosberg beating an over the hill Schumi returning 3 years after retirement isn’t the same as getting beaten by your team mate while still continuing in the sport.

              The man has 7 WDCs to his name. Peace.

            6. My big thing on this is what a shame Ferrari was a one rooster team and that we were robbed, especially when they were dominant, of a real rivalry. To me it is such a shame they took the easy way out by contracting MS these lesser teammates who would never have signed to be boot lickers other than that was the only way they could be at Ferrari or were even invited. We deserved to have a real WDC level driver beside MS to really challenge him. MS and JV, with the Villeneuve name and the number 27 on a Ferrari again, would have been mega.

    6. Really like Nico’s response to LH’s ‘easy’ suggestion. He has implied it twice now that I am aware of, last time being when he got clipped and NR cruised it at the last race, which is an obvious attempt at head play because LH himself has in the last two seasons had some ‘easy’ times too. It doesn’t and shouldn’t affect the opponent but LH is trying anyway, fair enough, and maybe Nico has tried the same little verbal head play too, not sure. Anyway, I do like his response…he’s not going to assume LH won’t still be a threat coming from 6th or worse. It all has to play out for us to know how this weekend will go. And there is still everything to play for in the season overall.

      1. I like it @robbie. As you I see it as much as a bit of a head game playing out as being what the driver really sees. Good to see they take the competition serious enough to see the need for that :-)

    7. Now I see that Hungary has been resurfaced, I remember I saw somewhere that Sepang was also working on the track, specifically the last corner, the harpin. A corner which “will be a new challenge to F1 and MotoGP racers” if I remember the tweet correctly.

      Does anyone have any news on that? are they going to change it?

      1. As of Apr 12th, Sepang re-surface work was at 50%, and schedule to be completed by May 8th, and will be ready for the FIM Superbike World that is happening on the 13th-15th May.

        As what really change, no specific was mentioned.

        This is what being said
        The new final corner at SIC will “make a major impact to the track” and offer drivers and riders a brand new and challenging experience. Other areas being upgraded include the circuit’s drainage system, kerbs, run-off areas and shortcut roads.

    8. 18 drivers were at the the dinner, which two drivers didn’t attend? Someone please help me

      1. R. Haryanto
        K. Magnusson
        J. Palmer
        K. Raikkonen
        (S. Vandoorne)

      2. Don’t worry found out, kimi, the Renault guys and Rio

      3. It’s actually 5 that didn’t. Räikkönen, Grosjean, Haryanto, Palmer and Magnussen. There’s 17 F1 “active” drivers plus Esteban Ocon who is Renault’s reserve driver.

    9. A good question posed to Gary Anderson by one of my fellow Autosport subscribers:

      I read a comment recently [in Racecar Engineering magazine] where Mercedes HPP chief Andy Cowell mentioned how the throttle pedal is used to generate a torque demand, rather than a throttle opening angle. This means that the ECU is managing the nonlinearity of the turbo power delivery, and so contrary to an ’80s turbo car where all hell would break loose as the turbo spools up, it is no more difficult then a normally aspirated engine. Everyone in charge of F1 seems complain that the dropping viewing figures are because cars are too easy to drive, so why is this form of traction control tolerated?
      Jonathan Wingfield, via Twitter

      And Gary’s response:

      I completely agree with you. Since the advent of electronic throttle control the throttle pedal and the throttle opening were not linear, with an electronic output from the throttle pedal you can play tunes on what is happening at the other end.

      Now having the turbo speed, and hence boost pressure, controlled by the MGU-H and the ability to bring in electrical torque through the MGU-K to fill in the troughs in the normally-aspirated engine torque curve, it is actually easier to have a linear torque at the rear wheels relative to throttle opening than it has been in the past.

      The driver can easily apply too much torque to the rear tyres and spin them up. But the days of, as you say, ‘all hell would break loose’ are, I’m afraid, gone.

      This is also one of the main reasons that new or relatively inexperienced drivers are able to do such a good job. Go back to the days of Senna, Prost, Mansell or Piquet using only their talent to keep over 1000bhp under control with a power curve that was like getting hit on the back of the head with a sledgehammer and, naturally, talented drivers really stood out.

      …I would be really awesome to watch today’s top drivers in those 80’s beasts!

    10. I always hate it when the word ‘equality’ is thrown about with regards to F1 because that is simply not what F1 has ever or should ever be about. If you want equality then there are plenty of spec categories or categories that use artificial means to equalize performance.

      I know that a lot of fans get annoyed when a team finds an advantage that gives them dominance but that to me is what F1 is all about, Every team designs there own car & every engine supplier runs to the same formula & designs there own engines & we see who’s done the best job & if a team or engine supplier does a better job than the rest they deserve to be congratulated rather than vilified for ‘hurting the sport’ as tends to happen.

      I’ve always held the opinion that the onus should be on the others to catch up rather than those who have done a better job been slowed down for doing what they are supposed to be doing (Designing the best car, engine or whatever they possibly can).

      I am not going to disagree that some of the more recent development restrictions (Particularly on the engine side) have been a problem but at least those restrictions (The token system) are been removed for next year which should help the situation. But even with those restrictions there was/is room to improve & some have failed to find the gains that others have so again I don’t feel those that found gains should be held back in the name of equality just because others failed to do as good a job.

      1. To be fair to both Massa and Vettel @gt-racer, both mentions the TEAMS being more equal in the budgets they get and Vettel then adds he would like the cars to be able to be closer in performance (explicitly says not the same, as that is not F1) and more easily able to follow eachother closely to push without the tyres going off.

        1. @bascb I don’t agree with that because similar budget doesn’t mean every team suddenly can make race winning cars. Look at ToyotaF1 and BAR-Honda for example, while on the other hand of the spectrum we have a bit of glodary days of Sauber and Force India.

          I think FIA should make a general budget guideline for running an F1 team in a single season (including designing, building and operating the cars and barebone personnel with standard rate salary) and use 70% of that as column 1 payment amount. The idea is long running team can easily break even every year. They still need to find themselves the rest of 30% and extra bonus payment or expenditures because F1 and FIA is not a charity. If they still can’t survive then the management simply can’t run F1 team. The column 2 payment then should have bigger gap, leaning to the top teams because it’s prize money after all – not participation money. Prize means you need to do something better than the rest to earn it.

          1. Well, of course there are huge differences in how effectively teams use their budgets @sonicslv, but isn’t that exactly the point? FI are doing a solid job with quite a limited budget, a team like Red Bull, Ferrari or McLaren are used to throw more money at things.

            With budgets closer to each other, a team like FI would see their strength be a clear advantage. But the teams who spend more will just have to be a bit cleverer at choosing what to spend on, I am sure they can and would.

            As for the part of your comment about distribution of the money, the biggest issue are the up front payments that mean a team like Red Bull get far more than Williams who have beaten them last year. And McLaren gets far more than a STR or FI who were clearly the better teams last year. It actually shows that currently the FOM payments work as participation money instead of prize money for good results, more or less going against your argument.

            1. @bascb Well, I’m advocating for [i]minimum[/i] payment instead of (more or less) [i]equal[/i] payment. I think those are quite different.

              About the bonuses payment, I can agree with historical payment of sort as long as it clear, maybe like someone suggested before 10M for every 10 year they active in F1, not arbitrary numbers like we have now. But what I don’t like is the team complaining of what other teams get instead of trying to work with what they have. They know the how much they will get based on their finishing position, they should try to work their budget around that, not complaining “wah wah Ferrari, RB, Mercedes and McLaren get more than me wah wah”. Complain about that to increase the actual prize pool, not to use as an excuse why they over budgeted.

              Also the interesting thing is the extra payment is not all participation money. Mercedes is actually prize money (they won a gamble with Bernie), Ferrari is because FOM is Ferrari b***h money, RB is for becoming FOM b***h money. I’m not sure how McLaren and Williams extra payment comes from. But yeah, I want those extra payment made clearer or at least come from outside the prize pool money.

            2. I’d say it otherwise @sonicslv. The extra money is just because Bernie pried Red Bull and Ferrari out of the FOTA by offering a bonus. And then the other big teams could only be swayed by offering a bonus (but smaller one) too.

              I completely disagree with you about the complaining. Its not fair this way, it ruins fair competition in the sport and it should be changed as soon as possible.

              Off course there should be differences between the last finisher and the best based on performance. But there should also be a solid base to be able to compete.

              You can hardly expect teams to sign sponsors when things are as hopeless for smaller teams as they are currently. And just look at large sponsors in F1 and how FOM has taken many of the sponsors away from teams in recent years. Instead they resort to signing drivers like Haryanto and Maldonado.

            3. @bascb I disagree about calling it unfair. The teams knows the prize structure when they enter F1. FOM doesn’t cheat by making the prize money amount secret (to them). It’s their job to budget their team expenditures properly with their target championship position.

              I do agree there should be a solid base to compete. Ideally this comes outside the prize money because prize should be a bonus not a necessity. However since running F1 cost is too high for most people, that’s why I propose the increase of column 1 payment so it provide reasonable basis to run a single season.

              Lastly, sponsors come and go and the team have harder time true, but I think most of teams actually died because they don’t budget properly. Has anyone investigating the cost required to run each team instead of their budget, because obviously if Manor can survive, logically Lotus, Sauber and Force India should be able to survive much better because they have more prize money? Also history always shown signing pay driver without talent is always death knell and idk why many still do it. Sauber have its glory days when they signed quality rookies. Manor this year looks a much better prospect with Warhlein while Haryanto looks alone in the back. They even get to this stage (10th team) because Bianchi.

            4. sorry to burst your bubble there @sonicslv, but this

              The teams knows the prize structure when they enter F1.

              is and was clearly not the case.

              Just think about when Manor and HRT entered, they had gotten their entry under a 40 million budget capped formula. Reality was quite different. And as the contracts are all secret, and every team has their individual contract (instead of the single concorde agreement from the past) no team actually really knows the details of any other team (save Mateschitz who knows the details of 2 teams).
              As for the free choice – Bernie did not even give the smaller teams any choice (apart from closing shop and ditching several hundred employees at short notice), Manor had to wait months into the year before they even got the chance to sign ANY contract, however bad it was for them.

              None of the smaller teams has a fair chance to attract sponsors, just look at the few sponsors that are on the cars – the majority are either tied to the owners of the teams, to the drivers or a tie in with suppliers/partners like Shell, Total or Petronas, Kaspersky, well and Ferrari’s “hidden” cigarette deal or they are deals that look great but in reality give little money to the team (like Williams deal with Martini).

            5. @bascb You misunderstand me. I’m not saying the team knows each team payment, I’m saying the teams knows how the F1 prize will be, i.e they know how much the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, … prize money is outside additional payment by Bernie. If you have a team that confident can finish 8th in the championship, you budget for 8th position prize, not 5th or 1st.

              Also do Bernie point a gun to the team heads? They can always walk out of F1 if they feel it’s a bad for their business before it’s too late. Sauber used to have WEC team, Manor also competes in other categories. F1 is not the only racing venue for them. That being said, downsizing and terminating some of their staff in proper time (not near holiday and with advance notice) and with bonus payment is much better than officially keeping their jobs but not paying them like Sauber or Lotus situation.

              As for sponsor problem, again they don’t play their card right. Ron play it right with keeping his car space exclusive. When McLaren winning again, no doubt any sponsor in that car will pay premium price. Granted McLaren is a big company so they can fund the F1 side, but other small team is also owned by rich peoples. Again, look at DM with his Red Bull and STR on how to play in F1. Look at ToyotaF1, BAR-Honda, and BMW on how to play it wrong.

            6. Well, looks like we both more or less made our points of view clear @soncislv, and we just see things differently.

              I think that the poison chalice of “you can quit if you don’t like the deal” is not fair, not to mention that a team going out of business that way would not get any money (they receive the money in the year after, provided they actually take part in that season) so there would not even be money to give staff any payment, let alone a bonus payment.

              And I doubt that even McLaren winning will bring in sponsors nowadays, many large companies just do not want to get into current F1. And the ones that do, get a more interesting deal from Bernie, who can guarantee coverage (well, apart from it being behind paywalls) at all tracks. Just look at how little sponsors a team like REd bull, Ferrari or even Mercedes have.

              But I get your point of view.

    11. Haha, didn’t Bernie just say something about drivers not paying for dinner not too long ago?

      1. Indeed @kcampos12, pretty sure that’s why Rosberg suggested they all pay together – that article is, I think, a bit of fun banter between HAM and ROS too.

    12. What is Vettle talking about. I have been watching for a long time and I don’t think the cars have ever been closer. The racing is as close as it has ever been, yet it is completely soulless. He must say this because he isn’t in the dominant one. I actually liked when they were much further apart and then once in awhile the stars would align and we would have a great season. Lots of different designs and approaches and no gimmicks like drs. There are plenty of spec series to watch. I sincerely wish I could quit watching this garbage, but I can’t. Harder to quit that cigarettes.

      1. @darryn You don’t think cars have ever been closer? In that case your “ever” must refer to the time period starting in the second half of 2013 only. Or why else would the same car win around 90% of the races over the last 2 years?

    13. I’ve been wondering, how does stats between Rosberg and Hamilton agree with championships won? I don’t know stats well enough to answer.

      For example, if they over the last three seasons they won equal points we would expect them split titles. But if Hamilton won 10 points to Rosberg’s 1, it seems he would win every championship easily.

      Or put another way, based on the current results, what is the probability rosberg will finaly win a title.

      1. @slotopen I’m not sure what do you mean, but maybe you ask about predicting the result by statistics? If so it’s all depends on the model and data you used (the ugly truth is you can use statistics to reinforce whatever you want to say, you only need to pick the correct model and data). But assuming you’re neutral, the easiest thing is to look at the averages. With 2 race this season we have Rosberg average finish is 1st and Hamilton is 2.5 so Rosberg will win this year. However its obvious 2 race is not enough data so maybe we could extend to few races behind to get more accurate averages. This is where it can changes. For example if you use 5 race data, Rosberg will still projected to win the title, however if you extend it into more than that Hamilton projection will be closer and closer to win the title and he will overtake Rosberg chances after you extend it maybe about 10 races or more.

        1. as @sonicslv mentions its not really easy to predict from just 2 races (or even from 5) @slotopen. Remember in 2014 Rosberg also led the championship early on, and in the middle of the year again. But in the end Hamilton won it in the last race.

          If you look back at 2010 for example and look at the first couple of races, it does not give much to read the outcome of the year either. And with Ferrari not too far away from Mercedes, its quite possible that we could have a genuine 3 way battle for the title, with luck, speed of the car, consistency of the driver, technical issues and development through the season will change the balance between them considerably before we get to the end of the long season.

    14. – Massa saddened by Sauber plight (Autosport)

      The case of Sauber, as someone previously pointed out is saddening. I do believe that teams who do not have the financial structure to stay in F1, when they fail, may have deserved what occurred to them. An example being teams who expect to immediately stay relevant from their second year of participation in the sport with the money they get from FOM. But such teams as Sauber and Force India and to some extent Manor deserve every support they can get from fans and the sport authorities. Sauber is largely a historic team and should not be thrown under the bus chiefly because they do not have hundreds of millions and cannot receive a significant amount of money from FOM adequate to keep them going and be competitive when the pot is shared for a given year.

      – F1 drivers split dinner 18 ways – and Lewis Hamilton blames Nico Rosberg (The Guardian)

      It is definitely bordering on the ridiculous with some people’s fixation on Lewis Hamilton. There is almost an inexplicable nutty or insane desire to just about write or say anything about the guy so long as it is negative. We all saw a foto of almost all the drivers having a nice evening together and it was said by those in attendance [driver’s press conference] that they all agreed to have a dinner together. Lewis chose the restaurant while we could see the foto was tweeted by Nico. As to the bill, Hamilton said he offered to pick up the tab since they were 18 and next time someone else will pay, but they all went with making individual payments so the bill was split into 18 places. Which in my opinion is tedious. But somehow if some negativity is not twisted into that story and Hamilton’s name attached to it, the week will not be ok. To make it a point of duty to find something negative, no matter how fickle, to say about the guy is just plain stupid and frankly speaking too old fashioned.

      1. Seriously Hamilton is making sense here. I wouldn’t want to split the bill that many, it will be inconvenience for the server too. If Hamilton story is true, then idk what the hell Rosberg is thinking except maybe he want to stick it to Bernie (at the cost of awkward situation). Really interested to hear other drivers stories.

        1. Depends on the place. In the US the usual tip is a percentage of the dinner price so the server has nothing to gain from splitting. But in many countries in Europe the tip is more likely a +1-5 eur on top of the bill. If many people split the total tip can be boosted much further and the server will be anything but happy about it.

          1. Story says payments were made with credit cards. Furthermore I doubt they each left tips as you are suggesting, maybe one of two persons did or none at all.
            That said, I just think the writer of that story carefully ignored the obvious stories which was either ”F1 drivers split a small dinner bill into 18 places” or for want of something negative to write, ”Waiter forced to dish out 18 different bills to a group of F1 drivers after a tiny dinner” or better still ”Hamilton offers to pay bills of 18 F1 drivers dinner”.
            Just saying the story could have gone in any number of ways but trying to spin some negativity into a gentlemanly offer from Lewis Hamilton doesn’t make sense.

    15. Hamilton is completely right with this

      Ich wünschte, die Leute könnten von der technischen Seite mehr sehen.


      I am not really into his life style, but I agree that its great to see that HE is living his life and commmunicating / sharing it with fans and being enthusiastic about all of it.

    16. Frankly, I’d have it split as well.

      Just because, as simple as someone doing should be *especially for them), it allllways comes up later.

      Plus, maybe it was a joke about what Bernie said? With them never paying for dinner?

      1. uhmmm 18 drivers split the bill….. hope they left a good tip at least !

      2. @mike But it made them looks silly especially since it seems Rosberg keen to use this as a jab to Bernie, which means he intend for it to be in news. Hamilton suggestion is makes more sense, someone pay the bill or split it between 2 or 3 people and not more. Make that dinner (party?) regular event at every race and rotates on who’s turn to pay. Splitting to more than 3 bills is rude for the staffs.

    17. Equality in the performance of the engines is the most important thing.

    18. What, Vettel wants more equality between team-mate?

    Comments are closed.