Don’t expect more passing in 2017 – Symonds

F1 Fanatic round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Williams’ technical head Pat Symonds doubts the new rules planned for 2017 will encourage more overtaking.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Atticus reckons Force India have under-achieved in the first three races due to their strategy choices:

In Bahrain, they messed up the elimination qualifying with Perez. But even after Hulkenberg was caught out in a racing incident and Perez drove into the back of a Toro Rosso (driver error) they were catching the field with good pace (and new front wings) before they decided to fit super-softs for an eternity at the end. They reached the cliff and there was no way back.

In Shanghai, they dropped Hulkenberg down with the penalty from his Q3 loose wheel before the German threw away his race with the penalty for his pit entry slowdown antics. Even so, Force India somehow decided to cut short their second soft stint on both cars, even after Perez got free air after being stuck behind a McLaren for a lot of laps, and elongate their last stints and the result was roughly the same as it was in Bahrain. Pace dropped off, tyres went off and they failed to score.

They indeed had minor misfortune as well, such as the red flag in Melbourne which hurt Perez very badly, but not to the extent they claim.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Markd!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Happy birthday to Daniil Kvyat who is 22 today. He takes his racing number from his birth date.

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.

78 comments on “Don’t expect more passing in 2017 – Symonds”

  1. With all this talk about how little overtaking we’re going to see with the new rules, it’s going to be like elimination qualy. Come Australia next year they’ll all be like: “we’ve been saying this wouldn’t work for months now, and look…”

    But unlike elimination qualy, you cannot decide in a meeting to get rid of the new aero rules…

    1. You really think we’ll have less passes for the lead (the only ones that matter) in 2017 than we have had in the past 2 years? You can count the passes for lead in 2014 and 2015 on your fingers.

      It cant get worse and with the aero opening up teams now have an opportunity to beat an engine supplier via aero. Something not possible with the current regs. Pat is only saying what every team principal says, stuff that only benefits their own team.

      You think Pat is happy with his teams current position? Williams has been actively testing illegal aero components over the past few years, he wants change, he just wants change that suits his team. Not a chance he wants things to stay the same though.

      1. Here you go, the crystal clear example of just how unlucky F1 was since 2013 with one guy always getting a jump on the others: the average fan – illustrated by you, but no offense – simply do not see that the formula is actually probably the best for overtaking since… ever. We have historic highs of overtaking probably and the mass fans still find F1 boring because it just happens to happen from 2nd place downwards… Utter misfortune.

        One can say “bah, it’s because of the dominant RB9, W05, W06 and W07 and having a clear pecking order in those cars in terms of driver skill”, but it’s not just that. Yes, Vettel>Webber and Hamilton>Rosberg, but it’s not in every race and even when not, fortune accidentally favoured the top guy (see Silverstone and Sochi 2015, and a whole lot of races in 2013, especially in the second half of the year).

        It’s just so bad. And the formula will get ditched because of it and it’ll be even worse most probably.


        Thank you for the CotD, @keithcollantine.

        1. Is it the formula or DRS that we have record overtaking.

          Forgive me I’m just an average fan. Could an above average fan like yourself explain how overtaking would work without DRS in this formula?

          1. DRS was introduced in 2011 and yet we have seen considerable increase in the number of overtakings in 2010 as well. It was even pre-Pirelli so we can’t even say it was the tyres (@spoutnik). DRS helped a lot, of course, seeing that 2011 brought about an even bigger increase, but it’s not just that.

            But, to be fair, I did not even mention DRS in my argument above, I don’t know why you brought it up. DRS increased overtaking all across the field, consequently, it also helped chances of passes for the lead, which you guys so badly want…

        2. @atticus-2 And yet every single overtake is DRS- or tyre-related. Still way more fun than no overtake at all, but far from the overtakes everybody would want (not that it would be easy to achieve though).

      2. You really think we’ll have less passes for the lead (the only ones that matter) in 2017 than we have had in the past 2 years?

        While I completely disagree that passes for the lead are the only ones which matter, I will disregard that and look at other matters.

        Passes for the lead have been low the past 2 seasons because of the dominance of Mercedes. This lead is slowly being eroded, and we should see more of them this year. Jump forward to 2017 and, if no changes were made, I would expect even more passes for the lead. However, if the new regulations do make following even more difficult (as almost everyone expects) this will lead to less than there would be without.

        Therefore, even taking your assumption that passes for the lead are the only ones which matter, the new regulations are expected to reduce non-DRS passing throughout the field including for the lead.

        1. Hear, hear. @drmouse

      3. Hahaha it can’t get worse?? go watch any race from early 2000’s up to 2009 and tell me if watching a sting of cars all running at 2 seconds intervals because they can’t get any closers improves overtaking. When they switched up the aero in 2009, all of a sudden cars could get within a second of the car in front and it was a massive improvement – These changes will be a big step backwards.

        1. If we had DRS in those seasons we’d have just as many artificial passes for 5th place that we do now.

          1. Duncan Snowden
            26th April 2016, 18:03

            DRS wasn’t introduced in 2009.

        2. Yes! Finally someone understands! Sadly, your logic is lost on those that voted for these changes. I guess that when “the improved racing” is seen to be worse, then those that voted for these changes will say something like “We didn’t know this would happen”, which is just nonsense, they know full well they are voting for less overtaking.
          We’ve been discussing this for about a year, and in that time nothing has changed. I can only conclude that those that vote don’t want much overtaking in 2017.

    2. we almost got stuck with this qualifying format, imagine if any of the first 2 Q’s of the season were as China was, wet. We would get stuck with a flawed concept. Everybody knows why the next gen rules are going to emphasize aero, and that’s because big teams can’t ignore the fact aero, no refuelling, expensive formula, are going to give them an edge.

    3. The cars should go back to a form of ground-effects down force, and minimalist wings: that way they could drive right up the proceeding cars gearbox, and preserve their tires.

  2. Why not change the tyres blind as well? The pit crews could wear blindfolds. And replace the Strategy Group with a roomful of dogs.

    1. Hahaha hilarious

    2. @bullfrog The Strategy Group’s a room of snakes as it is!

      1. @bullfrog @alec-glen I believe they prefer Piranhas.

    3. I have a great idea. Fan based sprinklers. Like Fanboost, but better. We could vote during the race to decide which drivers get the sprinklers turned on a pre determined corners in the race. The drivers won’t know because radio communication would be banned. Rosberg could be 30 seconds down the road in the lead, but we could vote for the sprinklers to be turned on at Eau Rouge and he wouldn’t know. Excitement plus!

      Oh wait, that is a stupid idea. Please delete my comment just in case BE sees it.

    4. I don’t know why I thought of this when I read the comment

  3. Whilst I can understand the engineers wanting to develop that car that gets on pole and runs away at the front, I don’t believe that they ignore turbulent air completely.
    Surely they all understand that they can’t all be on pole and that if any one of them came up with a magic solution to managing turbulent air they’d have a car capable of winning from wherever it qualified.
    Pat is just throwing out a furphy designed to throw even more destabilisation into the rules – I suspect he’s hoping something will be changed that might give them a chance to catch up as they seem to have dropped off the pace.
    Reverse grids won’t work because teams and team management will easily work out ways to counter them (like qualifying poorly to get a good grid slot) and qualifying and the like will become a farce.

    1. Exactly, Pat’s words are only to benefit Williams – he is not interested in helping anyone else. Clearly his team cannot win with the current aero rules so he is most definitely in favor of them changing.

    2. @dbradock Symonds is surely torn between being an honest man and an F1 engineer. Anyway it’s not like williams can win anything. It’s in Mercedes interest to keep this formula, especially considering the new is looking for more aero and trying to get rid of the PU’s. Williams is just afloat, it reaps the same rewards as Merc and certainly does not need new, expensive rules, so they are not without interests, I agree with you. There won’t be unanimity.

    3. ColdFly F1 (@)
      26th April 2016, 6:18

      Surely they all understand that they can’t all be on pole

      I read somewhere that at least 50% of any team’s cars will start behind another car!

      Reverse grid: only if it is for a qualifying race.

      1. @coldfly :)

        I’ve said this before though, I think it would be interesting to see the drivers lined up next to each other so P1/2 start on the same level instead of the few meters behind, same for P3/4, etc…

    4. Sviatoslav (@)
      26th April 2016, 13:44

      Reverse grids could work – let’s just give additional 25-18-15-12-10 etc points for the positions from 1st to 10th. Then, on the race day, we get the reverse grid, the leaders start from the back. And I stop watching this “racing”.

    5. How about reintroducing one-lap qualifying, but have only a single session, with the running order determined by the finishing positions of the previous race (or championship position)? The previous race winner would be forced to set his time on a green track, while the track would be at its best for the car that was the slowest (or failed the earliest) at the previous race.
      By having only one qualification session rather than two, and with the faster cars handicapped by their earlier running order, every car would be motivated to drive as quickly as possible. The evolution of the track during the qualification session should throw up a few surprises, leading to a somewhat mixed race starting grid, without having to resort to reverse grids (and the manipulations that would undoubtedly occur).
      Admittedly the one-lap qualification session would be less exciting to watch than the knockout format that we have now, and it could be something of a lottery in inclement weather, but the mixed starting grid should deliver more interesting races.

  4. knoxploration
    26th April 2016, 2:46

    I’m afraid I have to disagree with Symonds here. Not that he’s wrong that the new rules won’t improve overtaking (and will likely harm it). Nor is he wrong that intentionally randomizing grid order will force teams to overtake.

    However, the front runners will get back to the front without the slightest problem, just as they do now when engine penalties or other problems put them to the back. They’re utterly dominant: They have the best cars, the best staff and the best strategists. So they won’t be crying too much, because the problem really won’t affect them very badly. A few piece-of-cake, yawnworthy DRS passes and they’ll be back to the pointy end.

    Nor will the backmarkers be crying, because the grid shuffle will make it more likely that they’ll score an occasional point when otherwise they wouldn’t have done.

    I predict it will only be the midfielders who’ll be crying, but they won’t be able to change things alone. The haves will still have, and the nots will be slightly less not, and only those trapped in between will really care.

    1. It seems Symonds is right about the issue – new aero rules will make for less exciting racing, and quite likely a new team stealing the march on the rest with large gaps – “solving” it by going for reverse grids in the hopes that teams will suddenly make cars that are at their best when in traffic is just not a solution at all.

      First of all, most of them would start thinking up tricks not to end up at the back (how many points would you need to give for qualifying to make them WANT to start there?). Then we have the issue of a dominant car with DRS blasting through the field with little to stop them anyway (because new aero will likely make the gaps bigger again). And even if teams wanted to make their cars behave great in traffic, I am not sure they have to tools to simulate how to best do this.

      Overall, I think the whole “these cars are going to look great” is another typical knee jerk change that will bring extra cost, it will bring new dominance at the front, and it won’t do anything for the fans of racing. It might make qualifying look more spectacular. Or make for more beautiful shots of a single car running away with the race.

      1. Yeah the looks thing is going to be a waste of time @bascb. We just get used to them and come to associate them with their particular era. There was a time we were SO fed up with winglets; now a lot of us are nostagic about the funny little things.

        Reverse grids can only be done from championship position, as far as I can think. Instead of qualifying we’d have a sprint race on Saturday, which would set the non-reversed grid for Sunday.

  5. I think a better way to force teams to deal with overtaking is eliminate the blue flag rule that obliges drivers to let themselves get lapped — they should have to be passed like every other car on track.
    Some days I think the whole F1 rule book should be thrown out and rewritten from scratch. They add rule(s) which have a certain impact, then they add more rules to counter the undesirable effects of those, and then add still more rules to do it again.

    1. People would call that a “fake overtake” just like they do with DRS overtakes.

    2. They would have too much effect on the racing, and potentially in a biased way according too their engine.

  6. With regards to the article about assesing an engine failure. Where it says the engine will travel to sochi is it just me who got an image of it sitting on a seat on a plane, passport in hand, getting some booze off the duty free cart??

    1. I got the same image too!

    2. ColdFly F1 (@)
      26th April 2016, 9:30

      Rick, I like simplifications, and burning the blue flag could be very interesting.
      However, I don’t know how to manage the strategically smart teams instructing their 2nd driver to fall back 1 lap and blocking the competition.

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        26th April 2016, 9:37

        Oops, wanted to reply to @mtlracer‘s post.
        I’ll blame it on the booze I had on the flight sitting next to the Merc PU.

  7. How about running cars in reverse only so pole position amounts to nothing. Wonder if Bernie still hasn’t caught on to this idea.

    1. How about running cars in reverse only

      But wouldn’t the drivers get a crick in their necks from looking backwards if they had to drive in reverse?

      1. I wasn’t obviously being serious. Just adding to list of choices that Bernie can come up with to spice things up.

  8. Outside of F1..

    Looking forward to Mallya being extradited and getting put behind bars here in India. I personally know employees of Kingfisher airlines who weren’t paid for 6 months and were struggling to make ends meet, while Mallya was throwing lavish yacht parties in Monaco.

    India is the perfect example of a country where money can buy justice, as we’ve seen the rich and famous get away with any crime with a loving slap on the wrist. I’m hoping things don’t pan out well for Mallya

    1. I just hope the team can get through without too much extra issues though @todfod. But yeah, Mallya really doesn’t deserve much sympathy for how he went about things.

      1. Force India really needs new management though. Sahara is another company with a reputation for dubious activities, especially, considering it’s links to corrupt politicians in India.

        Honestly, the team could be in a crisis situation soon, and it’s going to require new owners for it to stay in the sport.

    2. @todfod @bascb Would really love it FI have a terrible season this year and beyond. He owes the banks millions and I really don’t care if he is jailed or not as long as the money is back in the bank’s kitty.

      Hopefully FI gets absorbed by some new management/team and Mallya’s a distant history in F1 soon.

      1. Actually i will really love it if FI had an awesome season so a buyer can get interested and buy it from Mallya’s hands before everything collapse. The team showed to have some good engineers and employees with what they have achieved all this years so it will be a pity for this little group to be dismantled because they ended up with a bad owner.

  9. Symonds is my kind of guy. First thing I thought in Australian GP, watching Hamilton unable to pass STR…

    Mercedes have optimized the car to much for clean air.

    You guys can talk the talk now, but result advantage for putting car on pole and running away with it is huge. Look at Red Bull years and now Mercedes. Its totally obvious they are doing exactly that and it ensures we do not get a fight for the lead.

    Firstly Mercedes can simply run away in quali, secondly second Mercedes is unable to pass.

    Symonds is simply providing a mathematically most incentive for teams to fix that. If every race was a reverse race I bet my bottom dollar that Mercedes(or whoever happens to be the dominant team) would become an overtaking machine the likes of which we have not seen in years.

    Now I am firmly against reverse grids.. But if people want to see a huge fight for the lead… Bring thrm in.

    1. I watched the same thing and the 1st thing I thought was ‘Isn’t karma funny’ as Hamilton used to laugh at Rosberg pointing out the difficulty of dirty air, even going so far as to suggest he just cannot overtake or isn’t fast enough on numerous occasions, and now the shoe is well and truly on the other foot and suddenly its the Mercedes car, not Hamilton, that is struggling in the dirty air.. :-)

      1. To be fair though, the Hamilton fan club was far more guilty of this sustained belittling of Rosberg and ignorance of the core problem relating to fragile tyres destroying themselves in dirty air than their driver ever was…

    2. I have to say that, if they really want an alternative qualifying, a reverse championship order sprint race would provide both the results Symonds is suggesting and an interesting system to watch. It would also potentially provide a better show, both on Saturday (you have an actual race to watch) and on Sunday.

      The best teams would need to be able to overtake in order to get a decent grid position, results would be more mixed up, and the cars would spend more time on track in front of the fans.

  10. Just for the love of God reduce the size of that 2017 front wing. Is it really that hard? This is F1.

    1. But you know a wider front wing puts the functional aero bits outside of the turbulence caused by the diffuser of the car in front right?

      These were the findings of Patty Lowe and the OWG.

      1. Don’t know if that is exactly the finding. Perhaps if the car is directly behind the front one, but cars are moving all the time.

        Anyway, I am hopeful that this wider wing is more for appearance and has a big neutral zone in the middle to make it act like a smaller wing ultimately. Unless of course they are bound and determined to keep F1 processional but faster. And prepared for high pressure tires and little traction to boot. The cars might be a handful all right. Too bad they might not be able to race with them.

        Here’s hoping downforce is only increased slightly and mechanical grip moreso, to start getting the trend in the right direction.

  11. That Mercedes article just shows that no matter how much you limit teams development in certain areas, they will always find ways to spend money.

    Electron microscopes, detailed strip down requests, teams of engineers (separate from the ones who actually design or work on the cars) in pow-wows discussing theories as to why an engine may possibly have failed, dynos running with deliberately faulty parts to show if the engineers theories have merit….this is all completely ludicrous and is incredibly unnecessary.

    The fact that teams like Williams, Sauber and Manor can’t beat Mercedes and Ferrari on track has absolutely nothing to do with how they work at the track, it is because they can do stuff like this and they can’t. That surely isn’t what racing is all about.

    1. That’s like anything elite it’s at the highest possible level, it’s why I like F1 more than any other sport, to take this level of detail away would be crazy just tough luck on the little teams they are only there to make up the numbers. Taking away what you suggest you might as well and go watch club racing. There have always been little teams with no chance of winning it is nothing new, if we dumb F1 down I will enter a team and everyone has to be on my financial level which would be 500 pounds a year.

    2. @geemac

      this is all completely ludicrous and is incredibly unnecessary.

      No, this is simply how any technical engineer analyses a problem – reproduce the problem in a controlled environment, monitor it and work out a solution to the problem.

      1. True, but my point is simply that it is unnecessary in the context of motor racing. If we were doing an aircrash investigation, yes, but investigating a fault in a racing engine, surely that is overkill? Do you really need a team of electron microscope wielding boffins to go racing? Don’t get me wrong, I am all for the advance of technology and one of the main reasons I love the sport is because it is automotive technology candyland, but the tech and brainpower that matters should be on the cars and visible to us the fans.

        I am very aware when typing this that I keep contradicting myself but I can’t find an solution in my own mind that gets me comfortable to be honest. I want there to be incredible levels of technology, I want huge brainpower to be on display, but I want it to be relevant to the racing and I don’t want it to simply be the case that “we employ 100 very clever people with electron microscopes and you only employ 10 so we will win in Sochi on Sunday”. Yes, I know the 1,000 odd people at Mercedes all play a role in making the team as dominant as it is, but should the fact that they have sheer numbers on their side and are therefore able to go to the nth degree on literally everything really be a key deciding factor on Sundays?

        1. This is how it is in F1 I’m afraid, there are many other series to go for if you want to find the racing scenario you describe.

          Sometimes, if a team can get an extra tenth of a second of race pace, then it can make the difference between coming 1st or second. Which is priceless to an F1 team. If you said to an F1 team “give me 20million and you will win the next race” they would snatch your hand off, so the money that bought the tenth or fixed the reliability problem that allowed them to win, is as far as they are concerned money well spent.

          I love F1 just for the fact that everything is pushed to the Nth degree, the racing and drivers have always come second for me after the cars themselves, they are things of pure beauty, some peoplel like race horses, or trains, me I like F1 cars, inside and out.

  12. I suspect another postponement on 2017 rules looming …

    1. Happy birthday to Daniil Kvyat who is 26 today. He takes his racing number from his birth date.

      I’m pretty sure he’s younger than 26, unless he takes his age from his racing number!

      1. That was not meant to be a reply to previous post, not sure how that happened :)

      2. He took his racing number (26) from his birth date (April 26th), not age.

  13. Away from these 2017 proposals, people seem talking about huge number of overtakes his year. But how many of them were for real position not a result of being on a much faster tyre? I would rather want fewer overtakes but with the drivers fighting for position on the track not on the strategy. Therefore I am not a fan of this new tyre rules, especially as they give opportunities to the frontrunners if something goes wrong for them, reducing the possiblity of a surprise even more.

    I also hope they won’t introduce more gimmicks by the evening.

    Kvyat turns 22 today not 26.

    1. ”Kvyat turns 22 today not 26.” – Yes, but he took his racing number (26) from his birth date, not age.

      1. Yes, but ‘turns 26′ means ’26 years old’.

        @keithcollantine made a mistake :)

    2. ColdFly F1 (@)
      26th April 2016, 12:34

      “how many of them were for real position not a result of being on a much faster tyre?”
      @michal2009b, I disagree with your view that these are not real overtakes.
      There will always be a difference between two cars – helping one or the other when overtaking. It can also be the car itself; the make/power of the PU; the age of the tyres; any damage they might have; etc. etc.
      Hardly ever in F1 will an overtake be one between 2 equals (even team mates have different age on their tyres after the 1st stop).

      I do agree with the common view that DRS is not a real overtake. Because DRS is (normally) only available to one of the 2 drivers. I consider it as fake as fan-boost and gimmicks like that.
      All other factors are for the team to manage; be it the type/age of the tyre or even the strength of their PU and chassis (although they might not have the funds to do that).

      1. @coldfly
        I don’t consider overtakes being made on a car that is yet-to-stop as a real overtake. Also, supersoft-shod car overtaking a medium-tyred car and pulling away at 5s/lap with the overtaken one not even bothering defending is hardly a real one too. DRS is obvious.

    3. Faster tyre or not there is always a reason for one car being quicker than another at any given moment, if the car is not quicker than the one it is overtaking you cannot overtake, do you expect a car doing 100mph to overtake one doing 105mph at a given moment? What is a real overtake, when a car travelling slower than the one in front overtakes it?

      1. I just think that the tighter the field in general, all on quite reliable tires in general, with less aero dependence and more mechanical grip, and without DRS, and at least the odds would be better that more passes would be due to one driver outdoing his opponent via skill vs what we have now which is often huge tire discrepancies one car to the next, and of course DRS and cars handcuffed in dirty air otherwise.

        The fact is DRS and the limiting tires as they have been mandated are there to mask F1’s race harming addiction to aero downforce, and the result of that is the drivers skills are masked too.

  14. Formula 1 has this habit of spotting something that happens naturally and delivers a great race and then contrives to make it happen all the time without realising the real magic was that it was genuine.

    Wet races are usually good, lets have sprinklers. Useless tyres, DRS, knock out qualifying, Abu Double.

    A driver qualifying out of position does provide some entertainment as they battle through, but it needs to happen organically or the occasions it happens won’t be anything special and qualifying will become a pointless farce.

    1. Yes, reverse grids mean at the end of their careers some drivers will have loads of pole positions and few wins whilst useless drivers in useless little teams will have many un deserved wins. Little teams should be where they belong and occasionally through fortune will get better than expected results like Williams. The only thing F1 needs is more teams like Haas and less Manors and Sauber types, Williams included who have ideas of grandeur from many years ago but have to accept they are a midfield nothing team now.

      1. “The only thing F1 needs is more teams like Haas and less Manors and Sauber types”

        Yeah, it is terrible having teams on the grid that struggle and fight for survival in the face of relentless oppression and lack of respect from fans and the commercial rights holder solely for the honour of competing. It is also terrible having teams on the grid who have done an incredibly professional job for 23 straight years, giving some of the most talented drivers of recent times a break along the way. Boo Sauber, boo Manor.

        Massive sarcasm alert. Obviously.

        1. @geemac

          I admire what the staff of Manor achieve with their resources. Sauber have also thrown in some admirable performance over the years, though they’ve never recovered from losing James Key. But I agree with Mark that we need more teams like Haas who enter F1 with a realistic budget and strategy. I think Manor may actually be now on the right track after years of half hearted investment, but Sauber has become a bit of a farce in recent years.

  15. Very disappointing by Symonds to promote reverse grids like this. He should really know better. Hopefully it was just a hypothetical technical point. At least he is a voice of reason when it comes to the proposed rules for next year.

    1. ColdFly F1 (@)
      26th April 2016, 12:42

      Not surprised to see Symonds to propose reverse grids, @balue.
      Wasn’t Symonds one of the ‘brains’ behind using #2 drivers to help the #1 driver.

  16. Given the power of the Mercedes F1 team currently – in that they have won the last two championships with a level of dominance not seen in F1 for a long time, that in the last two years they have won all races bar just six and set all pole positions bar just two, that for the last two years – irrespective of how good the race is behind them we have pretty much known a Mercedes driver is going to take pole, the win, and the championship and have currently won all races this season… I’m totally unsurprised to see Toto arguing against the 2017 rule changes.

    Funnily enough I don’t think any of the other teams are going to agree, and personally I don’t.

    Whether the 2017 rule changes are good or bad is a different discussion but I do think the rules need looking at, at least to allow the other engine manufacturers to catch up.

    1. Mercedes driver is going to take pole, the win, and the championship and have currently won all races this season… I’m totally unsurprised to see Toto arguing against the 2017 rule changes.

      I’ve been saying the same thing. Toto would want minimal changes to the regulations, and his ‘performance convergence’ theory is merely a safe way of maintaining that advantage. Sure the advantage is slightly slimmer this year, but the advantage could be completely wiped out with massive rule changes, ala Brawn to Mercedes 2009 – 2010.

      I think it’s fairly straight forward agendas from all the top teams –
      1) Merc want rules stability especially on the engine side to maintain it’s advantage
      2) Red Bull wants Formula 1 to move away from the engine formula and focus more on aero as that is where they are the class of the field.
      3) Ferrari would want to know the rule changes are, and obviously they will hold the right to veto any development that doesn’t suit them. Since neither engine nor aero are their forte, which is shy we aren’t hearing much from Ferrari these days.

  17. Ferrari’s Formula 1 jet ignition (Motorsport magazine)

    Now this is serious news… F1 tech yet again deploying something for my road car. Jet Ignition, making Gasoline engines close to as efficient as diesel engines… Not to mention gasoline engines are way cleaner. F1 could do more for enviroment than Formula E + WEC + Nascar combined… :D

    M M M. So Mercedes, can I have that please in a road car?

Comments are closed.