Start, Shanghai International Circuit, 2016

“Unacceptable” Chinese GP safety criticised

F1 Fanatic round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: FIA race director Charlie Whiting says the risk posed by a road car parked at the pit lane entrance during qualifying for the Chinese Grand Prix was “unacceptable”.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Alex had a good view of the controversy unfolding in the World Endurance Championship on Sunday:

My God was it tense in Parc Ferme at Silverstone. I was marshalling that event at Copse, but ended up providing fire cover whilst fuel samples were taken. We had to stay until scrutineering ended… at 11pm. Luckily the clerk of the course bought us a takeaway, which we ate next to the number seven Audi. I watched the outcome being pinned to the notice board: racing history being made.
Alex Brown (@Splittimes)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Jiten, Lenny, The Comedian 39, The_Pope and Tommo N7!

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

Luigi Piotti died on this day 45 years ago. He had entered his own Maserati in F1 races during the fifties with little success, though he finished sixth in the 1956 Italian Grand Prix (which at the time did not score any points).

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

  • 82 comments on ““Unacceptable” Chinese GP safety criticised”

    1. As Kvyat’s move is being discussed again, I’ll just paste what I’ve already wrote on one other article.

      Watching the replay from multiple angles, I can come only to one conclusion – Raikkonen keeps being a liability and both tangle with Seb, and Lewis’ tangle with Nasr are Raikkonen’s fault.

      First he simply cut over Vettel’s path, causing all the drama, and then returned on the track in an absolutely unsafe manner, forcing people who were already on the track to brake suddenly and swerve, causing Nasr-Hamilton contact.

      In the last few years, Raikkonen has shown constant disregard for driving etiquette, always acting as if he knows better then the people who came up with the safety rules and acting as if the safety rules are for other people, not him.

      1. I actually feel it would be, just my personal opinion, really nice if we could keep that discussion in the existing discussion. It’s a bit tiring having every crash after race talked about at the top of every comments section if I’m honest. People really need to chill a bit, it happened, I reckon the team and drivers will want to move on a bit, as I feel we ought.

        1. My problem isn’t with that particular crash. My problem is with Raikkonen, way too often thinking he is too smart to follow the rules which he probably perceives as being for “inferior” drivers.

          1. DK rightly took the gap but then he never followed the corner drifting out and squeezing all on his outside because he simply couldn’t turn any tighter at that speed while the cars on his outside had slowed enough to go around that corner. First corner needs common sense.

          2. what is your gripe with Raikonnen? he did nothing wrong, nor did Vettel or Kvyat, it is racing, but you single out Raikonnen, and have a need to mention your opinion on turn one in a totally different article, it makes me questions you, ie… you seem to hate Raikonnen and want the world to know about it with bizarre analysis.

          3. The problem is with you logic actually hahaaaa :D Kimi had every right there. Read this.
            ” Vettel’s collision with Raikkonen seemed unnecessary. Watching onboard, he appeared to have enough room and time to avoid contact with either Kvyat or his teammate if he had really wanted to, although this would have meant a fairly catastrophic loss of momentum. Wrong footed by Raikkonen sweeping back in from the outside, something which isn’t unusual for a corner which can be taken in a variety of ways, Vettel chose to try brazening it out and hit the hapless Raikkonen.” http://formulaspy.com/features/24830-24830

      2. ColdFly F1 (@)
        19th April 2016, 1:02

        You might get a few replies Biggsy (to me pure racing incident for RAI/VET/KVY).

      3. Raikkonen has been the most correct driver on the grid for the entirety of his career, he was on the wrong in Russia and that’s it. My only criticism of Raikkonen’s wheel to wheel skill is that I believe the move Alonso does the most, the switch back is the way to go as Raikkonen lingers on the outside too much, it makes up for fantastic wheel to wheel shots but that’s not what happened in Shanghai.
        The Merc went a little conservative, Kimi locked up trying to avoid it, both Kvyat and Vettel went for the inside and Sebastian is ruing the fact he didn’t take the inner most line and was mugged by Kvyat who inadvertadly spooked Vettel who hit Raikkonen, with the latter serving as Kvyat’s bumper car. Racing incident, overly excited first lap again but that’s racing.

        1. @peartree

          I totally agree. I can’t understand where this Kimi bashing comes from.

          He’s spent two seasons in a car he can’t get on with. Everyone knows he likes a sharp front end. It’s no secret. No he has a car with a good front end (thanks to Ferrari’s change in design philosophy), he’s been straight up to sharp end.

          What happened in China was a series of reactions to separate incidents. DK did nothing wrong, KR did nothing wrong… No one did anything wrong.

          Pure. Racing. Incident.

      4. What a ludicrous suggestion that KR was at fault there. He wasn’t off the track, was he? As Mark Hughes wrote in his review: Kimi had done what any racing driver would do, cut back to the racing line after locking his brakes. There’s no rules against it, provided somebody’s not already there and Seb was behind him. He should have anticipated that Kimi will return to the racing line, but he was busy watching Kvyat on the inside. It was sloppy driving at best from Seb, even though by the rule book(the real one, not your imaginary one) this was clearly a lap 1 racing incident and the stewards made the right decision not to even investigate it

        Before making liability level comments like this Biggsy you should be prepared to back them up by facts. So go ahead, prove that KR has been constantly disregarding rules and safety and maybe read the rule book first. Yes he made a mistake in Sochi 2015 but it’s no different from many other drivers who made “optimistic” overtake lunges. And maybe, maybe he came back on track too fast at Silverstone 2014 which had caused the big crash. But other than that nothing that was against the rules in any way. In fact KR is one of the fairest drivers in battle. He never pushes cars off track while overtaking and he never even reclaims the racing line before the corner while overtaking as so many do, unless it’s a lapped car or the speed differential is huge like against 2015 Mclarens

        1. “Kimi had done what any racing driver would do, cut back to the racing line after locking his brakes.”
          If you do that, than you are to blame if you crash into someone. You actually confirm that it’s Kimi’s fault here.

          1. RaceProUK (@)
            19th April 2016, 10:24

            Because Raikkonen obviously has a magical ability to see through Vettel’s car

            1. I heard he can walk on water so seeing through a car is not an issue he also turned rose water into champagne on the podium in Bahrain.

            2. @raceprouk, you don’t actually have to see to know someone is there. If you lock up and go wide at the first corner of the race, it’s pretty obvious someone is at your side when you cut back.

            3. RaceProUK (@)
              19th April 2016, 19:32

              @matthijs, if you’re going to counter my argument, it would help if you actually read it first

            4. @raceprouk I don’t like your tone but ok. You say that he did/could see Vettel, but he couldn’t see Kvyat. But how does that change my statement? Kimi still drove into Vettel nonetheless. I’m not saying that Kimi should be penalised, but I still think he contributed to the crash.

            5. RaceProUK (@)
              19th April 2016, 22:22

              Are you being stupid on purpose? Since Raikkonen couldn’t see Kvyat, how would he have known Vettel wouldn’t be able to turn tighter?

              Oh, and one more thing: Vettel hit Raikkonen. Which you’d know if you’d read the race report or seen the race itself.

            6. RaceProUK (@)
              19th April 2016, 22:39

              And before you argue, Vettel’s own words: “I hit Kimi”

            7. @raceprouk Kimi’s right to return to the racing line is always inferior to his responsibility to avoid a collision (same goes for Kvyat and Vettel), especially in the first corner when cars can go three-wide. You cannot just rely on the other party to make way. By returning to the racing line he lost his front wing. Unlike Biggsy I think it was a racing incident and that no-one should be penalised, but I’m just stating that Kimi had a fair share of responsibility in the collision.

              Yes, Vettel said ‘he hit Kimi’ because he did. But that doesn’t mean Vettel is to blame for the crash.

              I am not being stupid on purpose. I have thought this through better than you think. But since you are being offensive on purpose, I’m done with you.

            8. RaceProUK (@)
              20th April 2016, 13:06

              If you’re going to stick to the idea that somehow Raikkonen should have this magic ability to see through cars, then there’s no hope for you.

          2. @matthijs Not in the slightest. It’s in his rights to return to the racing line providing he’s in front. As any other racing driver would do that to keep his position. There’s nothing in the rules against it, nor is against the “racing etiquette”. It’s the job of the driiver behind to anticipate the driver in front will return to the racing line as soon as he possibly can and act accordingly. Which SV has failed to do cause he was busy watching Kvyat and by then it was too late

            1. @montreal95, his right? These rules do not apply at the first corner when cars are three wide. Then you try to keep it clean. If you lock up and go wide at the first corner of the race, it’s pretty obvious someone is at your side when you cut back. His ‘right’ to return to the racing line caused him to lose his front wing.

              Don’t get me wrong, I have sympathy for Raikkonen as a racer, but that doesn’t mean he can’t make mistakes.

            2. @mattihijs Yes his right. He’s ahead therefore it’s his right. The key word is ahead. First corner or no it’s always the duty of the driver behind not to slam into the driver ahead. If they were three wide and equal and Kimi cut across the bows of Vettel you’d be correct 100%. But they were not equal. Despite the overshot Kimi was still ahead and it’s Vettel’s job no to crash into him

              Now, as was said in that report by Mark Hughes, Kimi had 2 choices once he locked up his brakes:
              1) Run wide and guarantee to be losing several positions
              2) Exercise his right to return to the line, but doing that risk a collision

              Any racer would choose option 2. That’s the racing instinct. Kimi’s not an accountant and not there to play the percentage game. That doesn’t mean he’s at fault for the collision as Biggsy falsely claimed. It was a turn 1 racing incident pure and simple. And it wasn’t a mistake either. Sometimes you take a risk and it doesn’t pay off, doesn’t mean it was a mistake. You also forget that from Kimi’s point of view, he cannot see Kvyat. Had Kvyat not been there Vettel would’ve had plenty of space on the inside to avoid the collision and knowing that crashing into your team-mate is the cardinal sin that’s exactly what SV would’ve done without a doubt. So a slightly worse start by Kvyat and we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all

            3. @matthijs Sorry for the misspelling above

            4. @montreal95 Kimi’s right to return to the racing line is always inferior to his responsibility to avoid a collision (same goes for Kvyat and Vettel), especially in the first corner when cars can go three-wide. By doing so he lost his front wing. Unlike Biggsy I think it was a racing incident and that no-one should be penalised, but I’m just stating that Kimi had a share of responsibility in the collision.

            5. RaceProUK (@)
              20th April 2016, 13:07

              @montreal95 I wouldn’t bother arguing anymore with someone who believes it’s possible to see through an F1 car

      5. What kind of pot are you smoking to say that Raikkonen was at fault. Yeah he came to the middle of the corner so that he doesnt lose any positions. Who would want to run wide in that never ending corner. And why would Vettel feel the need to apologise so much if it was Raikkonens mistake.
        He is the cleanest wheel to wheel combat driver on the grid. Hard but Fair. Russia being an exception.
        He was faster than Vettel all weekend and if Ferrari had any chance to win the race as Arivabenne claimed it was with Kimi.

        1. “What kind of pot are you smoking to say that Raikkonen was at fault.”
          Someone is giving a well argumented opinion which is clearly not yours, and then suddenly he is smoking pot? Really?

          1. @matthijs While I don’t agree with the language, to call Biggsy’s comment well argumented is laughable. It’s out of touch with reality completely

            1. Your language isn’t much better though.

      6. Kimi at fault?! Couldn’t see anything that was wrong according to the regulation/rule-book. No driver complained against him either.

        I may not be neutral on this, but Kimi appears to be one of the cleanest guys on track(there may have been a few). In fact I feel he has mellowed down a little too much & gone soft during on-track battles in recent years.

        Anyway, you can always back up your opinion with facts @Biggsy, & we’d be happy to concede that we are wrong :-)

        1. “Kimi appears to be one of the cleanest guys on track(there may have been a few).”
          He certainly is, but that does not mean he cannot make mistakes. He did last year with Bottas (twice!).

          1. @matthijs,
            My comment was in reply to Biggsy’s one. I’m not confidently painting Kimi as a saint or being absolutely innocent. However Biggsy claims him being a liability & constantly showing disregard of driving etiquette. Such statement needs to be backed up by facts & I’d surely waiting for them.

            More importantly, it was clearly a racing incident, everyone involved except Vettel admitted so. And nobody, no team members, drivers, journalists or commentators ever actually mentioned Kimi being at fault on this one.

            1. Vettel is a teammember.

      7. I disagree with you. Raikkonen certainly can’t see Kvyat coming. Kvyat likewise can’t see Raikkonen position. They both did what a racing driver supposed to do. Vettel obviously anticipated Raikkonen path, but Kvyat coming in strongly on the door he carelessly left open took him by surprise, and by that I mean literally surprised suddenly there’s a car beside him. The onboard camera showed perfectly he jerking that steering wheel to the left, and a bit too much to the left to avoid the collision (regardless, with Raikkonen path, collision will happen to Vettel unless he brakes and that also risking to be hit from behind).

        On the way Raikkonen rejoining the track, it’s perfectly fine. Nasr (I think) forgot to keep eye on Raikkonen and he caught by surprise too when a Ferrari suddenly in front of him. Again same as Vettel, it’s just a moment reaction to brake and going deep to the right, unfortunately hitting Hamilton.

        To cut thing short: Raikkonen and Kvyat just racing, Vettel being in unfortunate lose/lose situation and he picked the worse outcome for Ferrari because he caught surprised. Racing incident.

        1. The best thing is after 3 good races, days after the last race people are actually having a discussion on what has happened in the race and not some silly political monouvers behind the scenes.

          1. @markp Couldn’t agree more! Here’s to more such arguments after the next race and after the next 10 races and not a word on politics! Although, who am I kidding…

    2. I think Toto is bang on. Stable regulations is what brings the competition. As evidenced by the performance gap having been reduced immensely this year, as it hopefully will be next year if they don’t change everything. I can almost guarantee if they change everything, one team will get it right, and everybody else will have to follow behind them.

      In the Red Bull domination era, they kept changing the regulations to stop Red Bull’s advantage, but every time RB came up with a solution just as good as last year. Did anybody ever consider leaving them be, and instead give another team chance to catch up?

      1. knoxploration
        19th April 2016, 5:17

        I guess neither you nor Toto actually watched the race. We are not in any way converging right now. Rosberg was cruising for basically the entire race, and even with the wick turned down he was close to **38 seconds** ahead of the nearest non-Merc car.

        That is more than a third of a lap advantage, and had Rosberg actually been pushing he likely could have finished more than half a lap ahead of the nearest non-Merc. He was damned close to lapping cars that were in the points, and again, had he been pushing hard from start to finish rather than coasting, chances are that he could’ve lapped up to somewhere around 8th or 9th place.

        You’re delusional if you think ignoring the fact that we have fundamentally flawed rules is a good idea. We are realistically no closer to rivals catching up to Merc than we were when this engine formula started. If we retain the rules as-is, I can tell you now which team will win next year’s championships. And the one after. And the one after that.

        I’m quite confident in that assertion, because I correctly predicted which team would win 2014 and 2015 before the cars even turned a single lap, and my prediction for 2016 is on course as well — even despite Merc doing their best to screw things up with rookie hour errors on-track.

        1. Right, knoxpolation, but I think you failed to take in account that a. Ricciardo had been ahead of Rosberg until a puncture dropped him down the field. HE would have certainly be more of a factor without that, just look at where he got up to from dropping right to the end of the field. b. Both Kimi and Vettel had a lot of speed but dropped down in the pack after their tangle, without that, its quite possible that would have thrown a spanner in the works as well.

          And off course had Hamilton not had his gearbox and engine issues and then be tagged by Nasr at the start, he would have been right there too.

          I think we have a situation where Ferrari and Red Bull have almost catched up with mercedes, and the field behind that is quite tight as well, with STR having a good car and surely McLaren will only get closer and closer too.

          But the most relevant point is, that changing the rules will just mean another team will jump to the head of the field and maybe be dominant. Meaning that most likely we will have a situation more like last 2 years (or the 5-6 before that) with one clearly dominant team, while everyone will have spends a lot of money on new aero bits etc. I don’t see any advantage in that.

          If anything, they should just get Pirelli to make better tyres, so that drivers can work with the tyres more and we can get closer racing.

          1. Agree with you the others catching up.

            Due to all the issues in the last 3 races we have still to see a race where Mercedes, Redbull and Ferrari really go racing each other hard. It might be a fun season yet!

            I feel that Mercedes was not really pressured yet, but we could see some of it by Ferrari in australia, but the safety car / red flag messed it up a bit (and the choice for mediums by Merc). If 4 other competitors are close enough in the mix to build the pressure and make the strategic decisions a bit more difficult for Mercedes I do not think they will hold up.

          2. To be fair Ricciardo was being passed by Rosberg on that straight with or without a puncture and there is no way he would’ve kept up with him after that. Ricciardo might have hung on to 2nd ahead of Vettel but Red Bull haven’t quite got the power to fight Mercedes yet.

            All this talk of Ferrari challenging Mercedes, and yet they have more of a challenge from Red Bull this season, which is ideal for Mercedes, as demonstrated in China.

            I am really holding my hopes on Canada onwards because a boost of power for RB is the only chance of Mercedes getting any kind of proper challenge this season. It’s a pity it will take until then because they will have the titles virtually wrapped up by that round.

      2. “Even if it is uncomfortable for the commercial rights holder that Mercedes have been running away with lots of the races and two championships, the longer you keep the regulations stable the more the performance is going to converge between everybody, and this is what is happening now. The gains we are making are smaller because the curve flattens out and the others are making bigger steps.”

        “Somebody else, or us, are going to run away with the championship next year because it is new regulations and everything starts from the beginning. There will be more downforce and less overtaking.

        Amen. Wolf might have his own reason for saying this, but it’s still the truth as far as I see it.

    3. ColdFly F1 (@)
      19th April 2016, 1:09

      Yes guys washing their hands and parking their truck in the pit run off area was ridiculous.
      And putting the Porsche Cup apex tyres before Q3 was laughable.

      But the FIA should also look at their own personnel for some stupid actions. I didn’t agree with the red flags in Q1 and Q2, and as much as it seems to spice up a race I didn’t like the SC either (as artificial as DRS and other gimmicks).

      1. I think the SC was needed. But they should have thrown a SC earlier, not waited after the debris strewn over the track already eliminated the car leading the race @coldfly

      2. Exactly its a bit rich to be pointing figures at the track marshals when the FIA seem to have lost the black and orange flag at every race track….

        While we are at it, its my opinion that the marshals should be professionals in F1/Moto GP etc. They should be trained with money from the FIA pot and then can be judged on their performances. If these marshals were correctly paid they would marshals to the equally same standard the lesser formula in their country which would improve safety at these races also (which sometimes is lacking). They should also be better supervised but that would come under correct training and leadership.

        Without them the sport doesn’t run. We need them and they need to be trained and treated right. I know they do it for the love of the sport but so do the rest of the circus and they all get paid. Don’t see anyone asking the doctor to do it for free!

      3. @coldfly Would you care to explain why disagree with red flag and SC because I think it’s the correct albeit maybe too safe decision.

        Q1: I think it should be red flagged. After nasty incident in the straight and the driver hitting the wall almost sideways (more dangerous than frontal in F1 these days) it’s better to take time to make sure it’s not something really dangerous. However, wasting time on drying the puddle is unneeded I think even though the initial suspect is Pascal spun out in because of it, not the bump so I can’t really object to that.

        Q2: I agree it’s somewhat unnecessary, but marshalls need to go into the track to remove the Force India and it’s better to be safe. VSC is more appropriate but I don’t think VSC can be used in qualifying. Most of us do agree yellow or double yellow is not safe enough in this situation after Bianchi accident.

        SC: I think we do need SC. It’s just too many debris on the track all over the place. And don’t forget Hamilton nose is sitting nicely in a corner still relatively intact and looks quite heavy (the marshall seem have trouble lifting it on TV, probably because of the ballast).

        1. ColdFly F1 (@)
          19th April 2016, 11:36

          @sonicslv – IMO
          Q1 – double waved yellow until car was taken away (next to access point). It’s the drivers’ responsibility to manage throttle based on track conditions!

          Q2 – Car was on inside (I believe) and yellow should have been enough (I would recover after Q2)

          SC – Not sure if VSC/SC/restart would have been better. But why after RIC lost his lead; if it was dangerous they should have done it on lap 1.
          (Heavy nose? – it only takes 1 McLaren pit guy to fit it!)

          I know it is not popular to disagree with red flagging and SC after what happened to Biancchi, and ‘too safe’ is difficult to argue. But I feel we have swung too much. Biancchi accident happened in freakish situation, but (I might start the discussion again) a double waved yellow is designed for such situations. And I squarely blame FIA for that, as they didn’t enforce double waved yellow properly in the past.

          1. @coldfly No, as a matter of fact I agree with you that maybe F1 “chickened out” too far after Bianchi, so to speak. But the circumstances, as I see it, is more than just “quickly remove the car”.
            Q1 – The race director need some assessment if the track is dangerous or just driver mistake. Furthermore it’s better for qualifying session to have clean track (from debris, not standing water) and the timing is at session start so the impact to the session is minimal – thankfully since we used old format.

            Q2 – I think its on the outside but there’s access door nearby so removal is will be quick. However I think the marshall that working on the car will be too near to the track. It’s a bit too risky for double yellow for me. VSC could be perfect but I don’t know if it’s an option in qualifying?

            SC – I agree VSC/SC/restart could work, not sure which one is better too. Maybe VSC is not an option because they need to bunch up the field to create gap where the marshall can enter the track.
            As for why after RIC tire blown, I think that’s what makes clear the debris on the track is too much and now we RIC’s tire bits too there. The “heavy” is for debris standard. It’s definitely more than 1 kg, not few grams of carbon fibre chunk. That amount of stationary mass colliding with F1 car at F1 speed could result heavy damage, unless physics law have changed ;)

            1. ColdFly F1 (@)
              19th April 2016, 13:15

              @sonicslv, just checked: laws of physics unchanged for today :-)
              Therefore “stationary mass colliding …” is still impossible :-P

            2. @coldfly Thanks for the confirmation XD. Can you confirm too if stationary mass colliding with moving mass is still a thing? :P

    4. “Toto wants stable rules for the good of the sport” -Toto Horner

      Toto, how was Red Bull able to win with the weakest power unit?

      Regulation opportunity, this is what 2017 rule changes are all about.

      Toto doesn’t want this does he?

      1. Who is Toto Horner?

      2. knoxploration
        19th April 2016, 5:18

        Of course not, because it’s the only realistic opportunity has rivals have of catching up any time soon.

        1. Also safe to assume Toto’s investment and bonus payments are directly related to championships won – NOT how close the racing on track was.

      3. Why does everyone forget that Renault were specifically allowed to be given a flat horsepower boost to their engines during the freeze period in the V8 era, and then furthermore allowed more advantageous engine mappings after EBD was “outlawed”?

        Red Bull and specifically Webber was very vocal and critical of how unfair the engine situation was, even more so than Horner now.

        While a lot of F1 happens on the track, or in the garages, just as much of the “action” happens in meetings behind closed doors.

        1. nobody is forgetting that and please don’t imply that FerrarI/merc were banned from running similar engine mappings.

          Also, why were Renault allowed thier engine upgrade? For the good of the sport.

          Did you know those same upgrade clauses were included in the v6 regulations? Funny how merc is one of the teams against that clause being used by Renault and Honda.

          Protect your advantage is the name of the game but let’s not pretend Merc aren’t holding others back while shouting it’s for the good of the sport.

    5. So tired of listening to Toto. He’s full of it. Every quote of his is the same – ‘Ferrari is gaining ground’ or ‘They came a little bit conservative on the engine this week’. He’s a broken record. I welcome the rule changes and hope they defeat the Mercedes team and put an end to their sandbagging ‘modus operandi’.

      1. @johanness Couldn’t agree more.

        Hamilton and Rosberg have also been talking Ferrari up since about day one of testing as well. It’s laughable. Mercedes will walk the championship, they are not kidding anyone. No wonder Wolff keeps banging on about Ferrari being “close”, he doesn’t want rule changes next year. Yeah, a 53-point lead after three races, in which one of your drivers starts at the back for one, is really close…

        1. If Wolff agreed with change he would be the worse manager ever, of course he wants to keep the same rules as even if naturally people will catch up they will still be there or thereabouts for a long time. Changing the rules runs the risk of Merc falling off the bandwagon, there is everything to lose and nothing to gain, he is doing the job he is likely paid so much to do, so cannot get angry at him for saying this. Any other manager on the grid in his position would say the same, the only managers over the last few years that would risk throwing away an advantage to be nice would be Whitmarsh and Domenicalli , they were far too soft.

          1. Lol reminds me of Horner in 2012, 2013 asking for engines to be postponed.

          2. markp, Sorry late response! He might not want rule changes but I wish he and other Mercedes personnel would stop talking Ferrari up so much when so far it has been a stroll for Mercedes. It is becoming predictable and I can’t take Wolff as seriously with these comments.

            The thing is rule changes might be a way of increasing F1’s ailing viewing figures, which is in Mercedes’ and their sponsors’ best interests. And even though they won’t want to see their current advantage diminished, these rule changes are also another opportunity for them.

      2. RaceProUK (@)
        19th April 2016, 10:26

        Deity forbid the reigning champions should show a bit of class and humility…

        1. Spewing shyte at every turn is a far cry from showing class / humility

          1. RaceProUK (@)
            19th April 2016, 19:35

            Maybe you should leave your bias and hatred at the door when you next comment; you’ll be less likely to come over as a vindictive blowhard.

            1. Coming from a guy who does nothing but antagonize on the forums? Lol. The day I take critique from you…

              Plus, my opinion stands

            2. RaceProUK (@)
              20th April 2016, 13:04

              Clearly you don’t bother reading most of what I write

            3. On that point you are 100% correct.

            4. RaceProUK (@)
              21st April 2016, 15:23

              Maybe you should if you don’t want to appear like a vindictive blowhard, always pushing some nonsense anti-whatever rubbish is flavour of the week.

      3. Ferrari are running a detuned power mode for reliability reasons, have been since testing.

    6. Gerulf Dösinger (@)
      19th April 2016, 7:02

      “I confess I did wind one of them up by saying that we were getting fed up with drivers abusing the kerb and decided to take a drastic measure to deter them.”

      I don’t know who it was that had this joke being played on him but in my mind it’s Arrivabene who’s face gets twice as wrinkly in this very moment! :D

      Anyways, I feel the track-safety was horrible all weekend long. Not only the parked car or the barrier put up in the corner, even how they handled the cleaning of debris in/after lap 1. The cars were still driving in a pack and I think it would’ve been perfectly safe to send marshalls out right after all of the cars had passed. It somehow felt like the people working trackside were poorly prepared for their job, maybe just a lack of information in briefing?

      1. Was it last year in China when a car broke down near the pit wall and they could not manoeuvre it and manhandled it, I think it may have been a Torro Rosso?

        1. Gerulf Dösinger (@)
          19th April 2016, 11:45

          Could be, can’t remember but I’ll research this.

          It may sound like a cliche but there might a problem with communicating/translating the procedures from English to Chinese?

          1. Or to use a stereo type they should use proper Marshalls rather than cheap Chinese versions?

          2. Paying the workers might also help.

            1. Marshalls are volunteers? Or do they get paid?

    7. I forgot to censor The c Word. Sorry about that

    8. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
      19th April 2016, 11:41

      Rather than “racing history” I think the weekend’s WEC round will be primarily remembered as cause to replace Marc Leib and Romain Dumas, given the pair failed to demonstrate the pace the #1 and teammate Jani displayed in their stints. Porsche were plainly faster, even in the hands of the weakest link of the #1 crew (Webber, unfortunately), but for Marc and Romain somehow four hours were not enough to take the lead following Hartley’s aerial exit. Erstwhile, Le Mans winners Nick Tandy and Earl Bamber were racing GT Porsches in the US…

      I think that whilst WEC can be smug in the way it has risen in profile versus F1, it still cannot match the breath and consistency of F1’s driving talent arsenal. At the moment, there is only one true superstar in prototype sportscar racing, head-and-shoulders above the rest…

      1. You mean Nico Hulkenberg? #Joke

    9. Dayum… Now today is a good news worthy day.

      So firstly.. Toto and stable regulations. My view is very simple. He is right stable regulations converge performances. This shows this season really well, awesome racing allover the place.

      There is however a big But! Current regulations are fairly poor at providing good car following. 2017 regulations as purposed improve that. Tire regulations purposed improve that. By All means we want good regulations, and then stable regulations for long time.

      Horner/FIA/Bernie new engine rule? To late. Now performance of engines is converging so nice in a year or two when new engine would be ready for Red Bull… (and nobody else would use it).. these engines will already converge to the point of parity. A good rule in this section would be… make a rule fuel must resemble fuels we can buy everyday more. Right now fuels are way to big a part in engine performance. In any case I hope Renault team also gets that “TAG” engine aswell, it seems good.

      Lewis Math… is unbelievable, he needs to win like 18 races? More like 2-3 wins with 1 poor race for Nico… or 6 1-2’s where he is the winner. But he had better start winning some. Wolf might be surprised by Lewis maturity, but maybe he should prescribe him a sports psychologist asap.

      Should Bernie retire in 2016? He should have done it in 2006… but that’s just my opinion, he is old enough. Some young executive cannot get a promotion because of him.

      What about Chinese GP safety? It was really second grade. Car on the track, Marshals cleaning debris like a mob… It looked unprofessional. Luckily 22 cars finished. Safety is about not depending on luck for everything to go well.

      And then Italians… omg. “Marchionne warns team” They better start winning or they leave F1? Or Pirelli, give us tire testing or we leave F1… Seems like business as usual in F1. Meanwhile Pirelli should sort their act.. 26 Psi or 1.8 Bar, as its known elsewhere… what are they thinking?

      1. “There is however a big But! Current regulations are fairly poor at providing good car following. 2017 regulations as purposed improve that.”

        @jureo The 2017 regulations as they are currently won’t help that they are going to make it worse, Practically everyone apart from Red Bull, Bernie & the FIA are pointing this out. More downforce from bigger, more complex wings is going to do nothing but make the racing worse.

        The drivers are saying this, Many of the technical people are saying this, Ex-drivers within the media are saying this & a vast majority of fans also believe this is going to be the case. Charlie Whiting has also come out 2-3 months ago & said that the 2017 regulations may make overtaking harder but that they are going to make DRS more powerful to counteract that.

        The 2017 regulations are nothing more than a vanity project to firstly make cars faster even though they are already getting faster & will be faster again next year without any changes been made & secondly to give red bull an advantage because red bull are in bed with bernie.

    Comments are closed.