Hamilton wants at least five more years in F1

F1 Fanatic round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Lewis Hamilton is looking to extend his current contract, which expires at the end of 2018, by at least a further three years.


Daniil Kvyat, Red Bull, Sochi

Red Bull created a special bobsleigh for Daniil Kvyat.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Is there anyone out there who is a big fan of Sochi’s F1 track?

I really dislike this circuit. The first real corner on the track is farcical at best when it comes to the start and the only real decent corner is the one succeeding it. Other than that, typical Tilke-style corners for the rest of the lap around some ‘landmarks’ I could not care less about really does not excite me at all. There is absolutely no character and the sheer volume of run-off in some areas promotes some wonderful track-extending. Fantastic.

Korea and India were beyond bad, and this is very much up there as well. The quicker this track is off the calendar, the better.
Craig Woollard (@Craig-o)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Russell G., Varun, Muz, Krtekf1 and Muz!

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

Jacques Villeneuve scored his first F1 victory in the European Grand Prix on this day 20 years ago. He finished less than a second ahead of Michael Schumacher at the Nurburgring.

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.

77 comments on “Hamilton wants at least five more years in F1”

  1. That bobsleigh is a message for Seb ;) .

    1. Aqib Qadeer
      28th April 2016, 0:56

      it’s a torpedo

      1. indeed it is!!!

      2. So Seb was right after all.

  2. In regard to COTD, I actually liked the Korea circuit and found it a lot of fun to drive in the video games (regrettably the closest I’ll get to driving in F1).
    The issue with that is it was put in the middle of nowhere in a country which had no major Motorsport culture at all. How they thought that event would survive is beyond me…

    1. @ambroserpm I also liked the Korean circuit, Especially the middle sector. I also gather a lot of the drivers quite liked it.

      I also quite liked the Indian circuit, A circuit that was actually designed based on input from drivers & that like Korea was actually quite popular among them.

      I don’t think Sochi is really that bad either & has produced some pretty good racing & not just in F1 as the GP2/GP3 races (Which sadly aren’t racing there this year) have featured some brilliant racing both years as well.

      1. India was one of the few tracks that had the right corners and camera angles (especially the fast chicane in the middle sector) to show how fast F1 cars corner and change direction. The middle sector was mega and the first sector had good overtaking opportunities.

    2. OmarRoncal - Go Seb!!! (@)
      28th April 2016, 1:25

      Korea was a beautiful track in the middle of nowhere, that made it not suitable, but just for the marketing. And for the pressure put into delaying its running time to fit European tv viewers. Remember that in 2010 there was poor visibility related to sunset time together with damp conditions.

    3. petebaldwin (@)
      28th April 2016, 13:07

      Didn’t mind Korea or India but as others have said, they were always likely to fail because of where they were located. Sochi however, is just rubbish. If the Sochi track was in the best location imaginable – it would still be useless.

      Turn 1 & 2 is comfortably the worst start to any current F1 track!

  3. Disagree with cotd. I quite liked India and Korea. The drivers had nice challenging sequences of corners to deal with. Sochi is nice too. Has a nice flow Imo.

    1. I agree with you. India and Korea were quirky as both are tracks have their own flow, rather than being another Malaysia, Shanghai, Turkey grandiose tracks. Above all it is the atmosphere that condemned Korea and India. Look what the night race appeal did for Bahrain’s public relations, the layout is the same technical overtake prone track, yet everyone loves it these days.
      Don’t think RB is challenging Ferrari more than what they did in China, Ferrari is fragile on power but lets see if the new upgrade allows them to not fall behind renault again as in 2014, you’ve got to point out that 2015’s renault performance is self inflicted, they were well ahead of Ferrari. I guess the slow corners could favour RB over Ferrari but I don’t think that argument on your prediction is going to be enough for RB, more high g corners is what they need.

  4. Sorry, but how is someone having another whinge “Comment Of The Day”. I actually like all the tracks that where mentioned, and while it should not be at the expense of classic tracks, I think F1 should be trying to go to new places. To me, it’s exciting when a new track is introduced to the calendar.

    1. @macca I agree, why not. Classic tracks were once new tracks.

      1. @peartree @macca I guess it depends on how you’re using the term ‘classic’.

        Classic should really mean something that’s been kept around for a long time because it’s a beloved thing. In 30 years, assuming it survives, the Sochi track probably won’t be a classic, it’ll just be ‘old’.

        1. petebaldwin (@)
          28th April 2016, 13:11

          @optimaximal – Classic : judged over a period of time to be of the highest quality and outstanding of its kind.

          Sochi will never ever (correctly) be referred to as classic.

        2. @petebaldwin
          People used to say that about Hungaroring (remember the nickname Hungbororing?) Nowadays, a lot of people do consider it a classic.

          1. @kingshark In fairness to the Hungaroring, while I’m not a fan, it has had a fair amount of history in that time. But if Sochi continues exactly as it is, it won’t have any history at all.

  5. I think the car characteristics really influence on-track actions. Like several mentioned, the GP2 and GP3 races on the Sochi circuit really shined while F1 (with current regulation) hasn’t really had a good race yet. Same can be said with circuits like Bahrain which produced solid racing actions under the current V6 regs. With all those 90 degree corners many people agree that the Sochi Autodrom does not look exciting but I’d still say give it more time; we’ve only had two years there so far.

  6. What I hate most about Sochi is the self-importance of Putin and, by extension, Russia. First they introduced the incredibly annoying national anthem ritual before the race. Who even cares about that? Then Putin hangs out in the green room after the race to meet the drivers who just want to freshen up before the podium. Luckily last year the drivers practically ignored him. This isn’t about you, Putin. F off.

    1. OmarRoncal - Go Seb!!! (@)
      28th April 2016, 1:30

      @selbbin I agree with most of your comment, bar the one about the National anthem. That was not introduced by Russsia; as I recall, every GP starts with the National anthem. Many other sports do the same. It seems to me there is some anti Russian feeling in your comment.

      1. If I remember correctly, they started playing the National anthem after the 2014 Russian GP.

        1. Yup. Russia started it so now every country wants to do it. I don’t recall seeing one before Russia held it’s first GP.

          1. ColdFly F1 (@)
            28th April 2016, 6:24

            All the GP’s I’ve been to had the national anthem played before the race.
            What was new to me in Russia, is that the drivers had to stand and ‘pay tribute’.

        2. When did you guys start watching F1?
          This has nothing to do with Russia, it is standard in sporting events and F1 has done it for a very long time.

          1. Mid 80s

          2. spafrancorchamps
            28th April 2016, 8:12

            Dude, the national anthem was being played before the start of the race in EACH country, years before the Russian GP.

            Looking at your comment, you have been propagandised too much by Western media.

          3. @selbbin @omarr-pepper @casjo As @coldfly correctly notes the practice of requiring the drivers to line up at the front of the grid to observe the host country’s national anthem was inaugurated at the 2014 Russian Grand Prix. The anthem had been played pre-race before then, but drivers hadn’t been required to line up for it.

      2. It’s just so boring and F1 never had it before. Sure, other international sports do it too, but that’s also boring. F1 was lucky to avoid it… until Putin ruined it with his nationalism. Now every race does it. I like how many drivers now listen to their own music during the ‘ceremony’ considering how much of a farce it is. Hamilton even tweets.

        1. I don’t mind the national anthem played at Monza. Italian national anthem a fun, catchy tune, perfectly suited to the Italian culture.

        2. @selbbin When every country does it isn’t problem, when Rusia does it it’s the end of the world. If you perhaps could attempt to form an objective opinion we would be happy to listen to it. There have been many events where governors were present. Fact is Putin is one of the most influential men on this planet, surely having such high places political figure deserves some attention. If the camera can focus on the drivers their wives and girlfriends I don’t see the problem it the camera also showing Putin. Do you really think that if Obama came to the American GP he would not get screen time?

          1. I can’t remember seeing any other government bigwig (or indeed *anyone*) barging into the podium prep room where the drivers are trying to wind down after the race. Yes, it’s fine to have political figures showing support, but when it becomes such a blatant exercise in self-promotion it’s offensive.

          2. I for one find the obsession cameras have with drivers’ wives and girlfriends annoying too, for much the same reason as its obsession with non-related celebrities (and yes, Putin fits that category) – they add nothing to the narrative of the race. I would prefer it if the asides were limited to short snippets of team and audience reaction. except where the camera spots something that may have an influence on the progress of the race.

      3. The national anthem has been played before the race in F1 since at least 1997 (every single race I’ve watched on TV since coverage started early enough to include the anthem has featured one). The change made by Russia 2014 was to force all the drivers to stand at the front of the grid, at attention, as it played. Or rather, that would have been the change, except the drivers were more interested in having solidarity with Jules Bianchi than with Vladimir Putin at that time (hence the unscripted circle in the nearest available space). As Putin’s idea was a modified procedure, the change did not become global until the start of 2015, at which point it appears to have been made a standard procedure by the FOM, from which tracks would need to opt out if not desired by a given venue.

        Different sports, and possibly different regions, have different approaches to their national anthems. International sporting events usually do have the anthem – but it is usually at the beginning of competitive play, not halfway through the last day of the contest, as typical in motorsports. Also, depending on the sport, some have the players in formation at some appropriate position (ball sports in particular) and others have the players simply stand respectfully where they happened to be at the time (the swimming competitions I did were like that). It’s possible some have the anthem played with no special protocol being followed by performers but I cannot think of any examples (apart from the tweeting/listening to music – that’s pretty standard “insubordination” across professional sports that aren’t closely monitored by protocol chiefs).

    2. I am OK with the national anthem but I completely agree that Putin and any other politicians should be banned from the green room. I do not think they should be on the podium or shown by the cameras during the race either.

      It is obviously unacceptable that politicians use F1 as a platform to promote themselves or their regimes. Hamilton would not be allowed to carry a poster saying ‘Vote Labour’ or something like that with him on the podium so why is Putin allowed to effectively promote himself there?

      Also, pre-podium room should be left for real men discussing real stuff like Kvyat and Vettel did after the Chinese GP. Imagine how much we would have lost if we had to listen to some lame comments from Putin or another politician instead of that discussion.

      1. I do not agree with the practice, but why should leaders or politicians be “banned”? If you come in to MY country, ask MY permission to build a racetrack, take some of MY money to do so, then surely, i have the right to “appear” anywhere i want to be. Even the Olympics are politicized; and as long as F1 requires help or funding from governments, then it will ALWAYS be political. Simple.

        1. @kbdavies Politicians do not use their own money to build circuits and host F1 races. They use public money for that. And they certainly do not own the countries that they represent. Government officials are nothing more than servants, they can and should promote their countries but they have no right to promote themselves.

        2. The FIA bans the use of its series from being used for political purposes by those affiliated with it. While Putin obviously isn’t affiliated with the FIA himself, neither he nor any other paymaster of the race is entitled to interrupt proceedings of the race, unless the conduct of the race in some way interferes with the job at hand (for example, if someone in the green room said something anti-Russian that was not a logical inference from events within the race, I would be at least sympathetic, if not in total agreement, with this being followed by Putin entering and reminding that driver that such things should not be said in that setting).

          No leader, even if fully funding everything from their personal pockets, has the right to “appear anywhere” without following the rules of that place, where those rules do not contravene the rule of law. That is part of contract law – and Russia subscribes to its own version of contract law that in most cases preserves that concept. There is no “appear anywhere” law in Russia for Putin or anyone else, unless a crime has been or is suspected to have been committed, or there is an emergency. Nobody has suggested either was the case in the green rooms, and only drivers and FIA officials in performance of relevant duties are permitted in that room when the TV cameras roll, so Putin’s appearance there was, at best, gauche. That FOM excused his behaviour and did not seek commercial damages (most likely from the organiser, as it is the organiser’s responsibility to ensure guests don’t overstep their boundaries) does not make it acceptable.

          I regard “barging into the green room” as interrupting the proceedings of the race. Since nobody has suggested anything done in the green room in either Russian race constituted interference in Putin’s role, there was no reason for him to be present at all (as opposed to being outside that room, patiently waiting his turn to hand out a podium trophy – which to me is a perfectly acceptable use of the event of a national leader’s advantage).

    3. Putin is not driving or involved in the action so does not bother me anymore than seeing a member of the Royal family at Silverstone.

  7. Speaking about tracks, why did the US have to build COTA? The are quite a few amazing classic tracks and common sense tells us that modernizing existing facilities is cheaper than building new ones from scratch. Or maybe I’m wrong?
    Surely that’s still much better than not having a race in the US, but I really would enjoy them racing in Watkins Glen or Barber or Mid-Ohio much more. *cries*

    1. Huge investment is required not just for the circuit itself but also for the facilities, surrounding roads, parking, hotels, restaurants, etc. The American tracks mentioned would have to be extensively redesigned in order to accomodate F1 which would fundamentally alter their character, likely for the worse. Even if the track layout itself is left alone, runoff areas, barriers, spectator areas, etc would have to change. I don’t imagine the owners of those circuits wish to pour millions into upgrades just to lose money bringing in F1 once a year for a few years while constantly being threatened with removal from their place on the calendar. It seems like it would be easier to start from scratch and just leave existing circuits alone, as has been done.

      My question is why most new tracks don’t seem to be designed with any sort of personality of uniqueness. A new circuit could be built to F1’s modern standards while still being interesting. For example, why doesn’t Sakhir consider using the Outer Loop configuration? Take a look at the map – it skips the twisty, generic middle sections and turns the track into a high-speed blast punctuated by a few big stops, kind of like Monza or the old Hockenheim. It may not be an instant classic, but at least it would be unique and help Bahrain stand out from the rest of the calendar. And it’s already been FIA-certified Grade 1, so running that layout would cost very little.

    2. The problem with modernizing to F1 standards those classic venues you mention is that they would then be ruined and no longer classic.

    3. Because all three tracks mentioned would have to have been ruined to meet Grade 1 standards – a foolish thing to do on the chance of getting a F1 race for a few years.

  8. Don’t agree with CoTD. Calling Korea and India ‘beyond bad’ is stupid, since by extenstion, you would have to call many other Tilkedromes bad. I’d personally say Hungaroring and Barcelona are worse than either of the two, and those two are pretty good themselves.

    1. @wsrgo I think it is beyond reason to call Sochi boring and accept Barcelona because of heritage…

      1. In 20 years time the Russian Grand Prix will have heritage.

      2. petebaldwin (@)
        28th April 2016, 13:14

        @xtwl – I agree. Both would be flattered to be called “below average”

  9. ColdFly F1 (@)
    28th April 2016, 6:29

    I’m glad Hamilton has moved on from idolising Senna.
    But he has put the bar a bit low picking a 5-time F1 entrant as his new hero ;-)

  10. Keith, thats the same video i posted to you a month or so back on twitter about how no one knew the rules of qualifying and the chaos that went with it. Zoom forward to 12mins a bit and see the madness at the start of teams being told they can race and then told they can’t. Nothing has changed.

    Regards Lewis and Rossi.. Rossi did well last weekend and totally deserved the win but people need to realise he left his Yamaha team few years ago who did everything for him took his ego to ducati to show how great he was and did nothing on a race winning Duke(in Stoners hands it had won the last race), no one wanted him back. Ducati didn’t want him, Honda said no with a big grin because he left them in the same way he left Yamaha. Yamaha took him back only because of the money he makes, he is brilliant at that. He was then terrible in his first year back and not much better in the 2nd but better. He turned the corner last year but only for first half of year then his old schumacher(actually worse) style kicked in and he lost his head taking out another rider. Yet somehow due to the nature of MotoGP and how it has to have Rossi near the front he came out the good guy, he wasn’t even DSQ!!

    What i am saying its hard to fail if you are Rossi when you are given opportunity time and time again. Also it would be worth noting during Michelins original stint they used to make tyres for him only. Biaggi and Sete weren’t given these over night tyres & he is also dumped them mid season and demanded bridgestones or he would retire. Rossi is a great he really is but what has surrounded him and unbelievable bias towards him by the sport has for me ruined the best form of racing in the world. We nearly had in F1 with michael but we got through it thankfully. We don’t want that again with anyone.

    1. Hmmm
      No offence but your post is simply a collection of rumours and innacurate facts usually spouted by those that choose to dislike Rossi for whatever reason.

      While it’s easy to ignore – everyone has a right of reply. :)

      1. id like to know what is not accurate? I stated he is a great but his career has been surrounded by things that aren’t right.

        -He did get tyres from Michelin that others didn’t. Well done to him for managing it. Shame he didn’t stick around when they struggled like Michael did for Bridge in 05
        -He did threaten to leave if he didn’t get bridgestones, also Bridgestone didn’t want to supply him as part of them entering motogp was to develop with ducati and beat Yamaha/Mich/Rossi combination with Ducati/Bridgestone/x-rider. But they were told they had to
        -He did knock a rider off and laugh at him on the stairs in spain(Gibernau)
        -He did knock a rider off deliberately and only get a min pen (Marquez)
        -He did claim he would sort out the ducati in minutes and Stoner wasn’t riding it hard enough
        -He did get a works Yamaha ride despite leaving them and performing very averagely on the ducati (but its personal opinion if he deserved it, I would of chose dovi at the time)

        Like you say you have the right to love him but the above all happened. If that makes him a great to you then fair enough, he is a great but he to me certainly isn’t the greatest. I can name 10 world champions at least who didn’t have to do any of the above to win.

        1. There is no evidence he had different tyres. None. Unless you happen to have something other than speculation printed as fact informed by those he was beating.
          He requested Bridgestones because he could see the advantages they were giving Stoner. There are enough interviews to confirm this. Done start on the ‘wall’ it was requested by Bridgestone. Given there was already a single tyre contract coming up and Michelin were getting bit tired (no pun) of criticism, he did a sensible pragmatic thing. He got early experience and beat Lorenzo again. And Stoner. He did not threaten to leave.
          The next three claims you make suggest you are very young in mentality and clearly have been reading too much ‘internet’ chat
          He left Yamaha at the end of the first year he had been injured. There were sensible reasons for this. Not least the fact that as he admits he was angry at having Lorenzo paid the same as him given he had brought multiple championships to them after a period of years where they had won nothing at all. And had beaten Lorenzo two years straight. Given he would almost certainly have beaten Lorenzo again bar the accident, one can understand his frustrations given the value he had returned to Yamaha, credit crunch or not.
          You may have noticed that Yamahas development with Lorenzo as head was going in one direction. The wrong direction if you wish to provide bikes others can get good results on. Only Lorenzo was getting results. This is particularly so if you as a manufacturer wish to beat the far bigger competitor called Honda.
          Clearly you did not notice the development changing and Lorenzo once again being beaten by Rossi – I guess you are blinded by the MM ‘brilliance’ rather than how average he is should a technical advantage not be present.

          You no doubt also think the single biggest travesty in Motorsport that occurred last year, one where they did not even have rules invented to punish the exponent, was also Rossis fault.

          However if you think starting a race at the back and overtaking 20 bikes regardless and losing a championship to someone who had happily enjoyed the assistance from a countryman not in the fight. Well Sir, that just makes you a fool.

          1. Just to say Keith – normal F1 service will be returned to soon.

            God forbid we see something like last years MotoGP occurring ever in F1 no matter how upset people are with it.

    2. Got it. Rossi is the devil in disguise everywhere, anywhere, anytime, manipulating bringing all things to his favor. Thank you for enlightening, until now I believed he was a monster of a talent winning 9 championships.

      1. Heh – most people argue he has ten.

        Having watched all of last year as I have watched all of them since 1980 – I agree…

    3. Fair points. BTW Honda didn’t want Rossi saying something like the successor of Sharon Stone is not Sharon Stone :-)

    4. What a huge pile of BS.

  11. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
    28th April 2016, 8:49

    “Is there anyone out there who is a big fan of Sochi’s F1 track?”

    Yes – Bernie Ecclestone and Vladimir Putin. Every emperor needs a Colosseum…

    1. @william-brierty There are plenty of people, hardcore fans and casual ones. Same goes for India…

      1. Count me in I like the track, there is not one track on the calendar I dislike I just happen to like some more than others.

      2. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
        28th April 2016, 11:55

        @xtwl – I agree, Keith asked the question and I seized the opportunity for some Augustan satire. Yes, I’m sure there are plenty of genuine fans at Sochi, although doubtless the Russian government is similarly invested in padding out the Sunday crowd as in Bahrain. But equally I bet those genuine fans wish they were in a royal Italian park or the Ardennes rather than watching cars navigate 90° corners around a dormant Olympic park. Sochi is currently without a challenger for the title of “Worst Racetrack in F1”.

        1. @william-brierty
          Royal Italian park? Are you referring to Monza? To me Sochi is far better than Monza. Sochi has actually given us good racing and the surroundings are brilliant (at least for a guy like me, who has huge interest in Winter Olympics). Monza hasn’t given us enjoyable dry race for decades. Spa does high-speed thing better than Monza and Red Bull Ring does countryside surroundings better than Monza.

          1. @huhhii I don’t know, I guess you have never stood track side and watched an F1 car through the Ascari chicane! It’s not all about the races the track produces, some of it is about the challenge to man and machine.

          2. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
            29th April 2016, 10:00

            @huhhii “To me Sochi is far better than Monza.”

            I think I’m getting a nose-bleed. As a Monza regular, and having also had the privilege to attend most of world’s racetracks, Monza is categorically the best spectator experience. It is a racetrack that exudes majesty and splendor, from the echo of the cars, to the roar of the tifosi and the dappled light under the trees. Get over there and judge for yourself whether you still think Sochi is “far better.”

          3. @asanator @william-brierty
            Correct, I’ve never been in Monza. I was comparing tracks purely from TV-spectator’s view.

            I guess both of you have attended Russian and Italian GP’s since you can make such bold comparisons :) Never going to Monza (or any other grand prix), because I find F1 tickets to be ridicilously over-priced. I’ll concentrate on WRC instead.

          4. WilliamB (@william-brierty)
            29th April 2016, 15:56

            @huhhii Well yeah, I can make such bold comparisons, I went to the 2014 race at Sochi. I didn’t go again the next year…

  12. Abiteboul is spot on. An engine project might be complex and expensive but F1 is mostly about spending more money than anyone else. Red Bull subscribed to that formula (no pun intended) and it served them well for many years. Then it turned out they did not invest money in the right areas and are still paying the price, which is only fair.

    Decisions about things like engine parity and ‘FIA engines’ should be made several years in advance and only after F1 has a ‘clear master plan’ that the GPDA mentioned in their recent letter. I do not see why any manufacturer would want to invest in a sport that does not seem to know what it wants and where it is going.

    1. petebaldwin (@)
      28th April 2016, 13:22

      @girts – My issue with all of this is separating customer engines with customer cars and aero. What is the difference and how does that apply to this idea? If it’s a “spending the most money” exercise, why can’t those who can’t afford it buy other parts from Mercedes?

      Why are customer engines different to customer cars?

      1. @petebaldwin I have thought about this but I cannot really answer that question. It seems to me that it is simply a tradition. Historically, customer engines have been much more common than customer cars even though the latter were legal for a long time, too.

        Sever team principals have said that customer cars would be against the “DNA of F1” but it is probably not the best argument as no one has defined that DNA. The claim that it would create a two-tier F1 is not much better either. Given the different budgets, we already have that ie. the likelihood that Force India or even Williams will win a race is very low.

        So yes, I think a lot of questions need to be asked. If Mercedes are an engine supplier, why could not Red Bull be a chassis supplier? Should they be obliged to sell their aerodynamic parts or the whole car at a fixed price to any team that wants them? Maybe F1 should strive to achieve chassis parity, too?

  13. They could spend a bit of the money they get from FOM into developing an engine, but they’ve decided to spend it on the chassis and driver development.

    I must say, AFAIK* Red Bull are one of the richer teams on the grid. They could afford to build their own engine, but choose not to. This will always leave them reliant on their supplier to build a decent engine for them, and on a supplier being willing to supply them.

    Imagine a situation where things were different, and you could buy a chassis. If a well-off team then chose to spend all their money on engine development but buy a chassis, and then tried to bully the sport into forcing Red Bull to supply them with their chassis for peanuts, would this be acceptable?

    Also, F1 is as much a business as a sport. It is up to Red Bull to secure the parts they need through negotiations with various suppliers. If they cannot secure supply of an engine to their requirements, that is a failure on their part.

    I must say that I’d, personally, set it in the rules that all engine suppliers must just set a price for their engine (say 12 months before the start of the season) then allow anyone to choose that engine (say by a couple of months later). This would give them plenty of time to ensure they had the manufacturing and support capacity in place, and ensure a fair choice for all competitors. But this is not the situation, and all teams must work within the same rules.

    * I may be wrong, and am happy to be corrected on this.

    1. Problem is an engine is your USP and a performance part like a front wing or any silly aero part so if you make it you should have the best version, it is not a supplier part the only supplier part equal for all should be the tyres and even then this could change as for many eras F1 had different tyre suppliers who worked more closely with some teams than others they supply.

  14. @Craig-o Good thing you don’t rule F1 then as (how hard it is to believe) there are many people who like it. Same goes for India and Korea. Both just were located terribly but the tracks were great. Some people even went as far as calling India the Asian Spa…

  15. To clarify regarding my comment on Sochi: the country in which it is located in or my political views does not change my stance on it whatsoever. It could be in the middle of nowhere in Italy and I would still say what I do.

    I have played all of the modern F1 tracks on games (Sochi and Mexico as mods only however as I have no intention of getting any F1 game by Codemasters in the near future) and I simply do not particularly enjoy driving around them. I simply get bored after a couple of laps. I really cannot see anything fun about doing slightly different variations of the same corner (90-ish degree, slightly adverse camber with probably a sausage kerb in the middle, usually third gear in a modern F1 car) a multiple number of times, and that is unfortunately what most modern F1 tracks are about. It’s not particularly fun to do in a sim race, and it is not particularly exciting to watch on the TV, and I’m not overly convinced that it produces good racing without a DRS zone immediately afterwards.

    I have said it before (on here in fact) and I will say it again: most modern F1 tracks are just plain dull and really repetitive. Sure we have had a few decent ones emerge over the last dozen years (I enjoy Bahrain – more-so since the V6 era came about, Turkey was a cracking track and COTA is another very good one) but other than that a lot of the brand-new circuits simply do not excite me from a driving or racing standpoint. Somewhere such as Mexico has got some great character with the stadium section, but it is another track I just get bored of very quickly. Abu Dhabi, Valencia and Singapore are more tracks which could easily be added to the list of ‘there’s a nice bit at one point but that’s all’ circuits.

    I have absolutely nothing against F1 visiting new venues. I have absolutely nothing personal against Tilke. However I do have something against the sheer repetitiveness and lack of character within the majority of new circuits and new venues F1 ends up going to.

    1. Problem with designing F1 tracks is the space you have to build in taking into account the infrastructure, facilities, run off areas required to name but a few things. Also slow corners allow drivers to make time over others more than fast corners, tracks like Sochi are very technical.

  16. Todays news are business as usual..

    #44 wants to emulate #46.

    #McLaren struggling in all areas, slowly they will get to 2014 level…

    #Renault Red Bull, strategic mistakes made in 2011-2013, they are paying for since 2014.

    #Mercedes shuffling team around, so team does not get tired of all their dominance.

    #1970 FW complaining about f1 democracy.. It is just telling, whenever I watch 80s or 90s F1 full races commentators remark how Tires need to be saved, fuel is an issue and these new regulations are hard to follow.

    :) as for myself I look forward ro this Weekend. For sure it will be good like every race this year. And since I am big on racing and not so much fight for first place, midfield will enthrall me with awesome time. Maybe even Lewis will get us some P1, or new Ferrari upgrade will be good?

    1. Just with respect to the 70’s politics and the 80’s and 90’s racing…let’s not forget it is about degrees.

      Having the drivers qualify was really not such a big deal and was a tiny thimble worth of politics as we know it today.

      As to tires…we have always known tires have been an issue and that a driver can’t just go out and use them up with crazy sliding etc. That’s been the case in all forms of racing all the time. And if fuel management can prevent one stop from happening then that has always been a concern too. But at least the drivers were left to sort that out themselves. At least they could push to their and their cars’ limits such that drivers had to keep these things in mind without computer models telling them, and before they wore the tires out well before they or their cars were taxed.

      Also, back then we saw F1 only grow and grow along with the audience size globally. The opposite is the case now.

      It is about degrees.

  17. Personally I reckon when a dodgy sub-ed has stuck a completely misleading headline on an article, like the motorsport.com one claiming Hamilton said something totally different to what’s quoted in the article itself, @keithcollantine should resist the temptation to link to it.

Comments are closed.