Ferrari, Singapore, 2016

Ferrari could lose veto over F1 rules

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Ferrari could lose its controversial power to veto changes to Formula One’s rules.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

More team orders at Sauber caught Christopher’s eye in the Mexican Grand Prix team radio transcript:

Not surprised to hear Nasr moaning about letting Ericsson pass him again. Remember how that went in Monaco? After refusing for many laps, Ericsson decided to take matters into his own hands and that didn’t turn out all too well for any of them. The Brazilian is clearly not happy about losing out to Ericsson.
Christopher (@Chrischrill)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Narboza22 and Rafael!

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 1980 world champion Alan Jones who is 70 today.

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

  • 74 comments on “Ferrari could lose veto over F1 rules”

    1. This lasting advantage thing has always been a point of debate when it comes to chicanes. Surely the best way to view it is whether or not the driver would have lost out if they had tried to make the next corner. I think in Hamilton, Rosberg, and Verstappen’s case they could have all made it back on the track in time for turn 2, but would have lost positions. In any other non-chicane corner they wouldn’t have had any choice.

      Therefore, by going straight on they are easily gaining an advantage, as they aren’t losing the positions that they should.

      Even in Rosberg’s case, although he was pushed off, he still could’ve continued to the right.

      1. I’m kind of glad I don’t care about F1 that much any more, because I would have been completely livid if I was cheering for some Hamilton’s rival. Or if I was Vettel’s fan, and Verstappen just went and straighten the chicane.

      2. Well, Rosberg would have a hard time continuing to the right though. Because of 1. Verstappen, 2. Incoming traffic. He couldn’t have just joined the track immediately there. His off the track excursion was not the worst really especially considering that he was pushed off.

      3. If Rosberg had of kept the the track, what would have happened? I think him going off was prudent.

      4. i think verstappen (at the end) and hamilton (at the start) gained a clear advantage by going off the track after missing their braking points. rosberg didn’t miss his braking point, but he was hit so went off due to that and in avoidance. he also didn’t really cut turn 3, which the other two did by a mile. hamilton is a lucky boy, but i guess he still would have won with a 5 second penalty. however, if there was a gravel trap, or sleeping policemen, he wouldn’t have been so fortunate.

        1. LH and Rosberg did not gain any advantage. NR did this in Canada in 2014 and also was not penalised. The stewards have been consistent on this.

          1. You need to watch the video again. Hamilton’s lead after leaving the circuit was double that before he left it.

            1. Yes but if you watched the race and read the article, he slowed down for the pack to catch up before the VSC was issued.

      5. Martin Brundle has explained this point quite clearly in this article. LH did not gain any lasting advantage by straight lining T1. Infact he slowed down to get as close to the cars behind.

        1. I disagree with what Brundle has said. Time wise, he was the same / worse off than had he not missed the braking zone, however had took advantage of the run-off to avoid turn two, which in itself is an advantage he shouldn’t have had in my opinion.

          1. He gained a lasting advantage because he kept 1st place. A big mistake like that should cost you a decent bit of time – a few seconds minimum. Hamilton lost no time so he gained an advantage by driving straight over the grass rather than re-joining the track as soon as he could.

            If there was a wall there instead of grass, he would have braked a little earlier, would have braked harder and would have made the corner. He would have lost more time in doing so than he did but driving over the grass. There is your advantage gained.

            1. Yeah, but the safety car nullified any potential lasting advantage he could have gained by leaving the track, so even if he did benefit from his off-track excursion, it didn’t last for long as the safety car bunching up the field gave Rosberg a chance to overtake him on the start/finish straight up to turn 1 at the re-start, but he didn’t, so Lewis kept the lead until the end.

            2. Did Hamilton gain time or did the Rosberg/Verstappen incident give him time?

            3. Exactly. I think he would have been penalised had the safety car not nullified the advantage. Mercedes may have asked Lewis to reduce the gap if the situation had been different.

            4. I agree. I think Hamilton should have got a 5 second penalty just like Verstappen did. He should have braked at the correct point on the track, but chose not to, and it appears to be the same with Verstappen, he should have braked at the correct point on the track as well and chose not to. One could argue that Hamilton’s brakes weren’t at the right temperature, but he is a World Driver’s Champion, so he should have the experience to allow for that.

          2. You can clearly see that Hamilton ended up ahead of where he would have been if he had stayed on the track. The fact there was a Virtual Safety Car doesn’t stop the fact he went off the track and came back on ahead of where should have been. Really, regardless of whether or not he gained an advantage, he left the track and should have been penalised. It’s a bit like if you handle a ball in soccer, your team may not have gained any advantage by you doing this, but you still handled the ball and the referee will give you a penalty if he sees it. The same should apply to Hamilton, he should have got a penalty. If, when Hamilton had returned to the track it was obvious that he had been disadvantaged by his mistake and was in something like 10th place, then maybe it would be different, but he didn’t, he braked late, was first before he went off, and gained distance compared to his competitors, when he returned. It was the result of his own error that he went off the track, no one else contributed to his running off the track.

    2. I hope there is some clarificiation on Brawn’s role in F1. If he is going to “mastermind the rules and regulations”, what will the FIA’s role be?

      1. They’ve already effectively given up their right to be a proper regulator. So Brawn coming in wouldn’t really change things, it would just mean that someone who knows how to formulate and put into effect long term plans will be at the helm…which is good.

        1. Hopefully FIA will only have a political role…

    3. Martin Brundle claims that the longevity of the medium tyre in Mexico proves that a durable “Michelin like” tyre doesn’t improve the racing, conveniently (or Alzheimers?) forgetting that nobody started on the medium tyre and continued to the race end without stopping because regulations forbid it, nor did the entire field all change their tyres at the same time to the same compound. If there were no mandatory pit stops and the entire field were running the same durable compound then the cars would be closer together and would be forced to do their passing on the track.

      1. The big difference is that these tires were durable and had no grip, so racing was impossible. In the past tires have been durable but they performed correctly.

      2. You are right. At least, the tyres this weekend let, for example, Perez follow Massa closely the whole race. Every time they showed us those two, I was surprised how he was still following him so close. The tyres also let Verstappen to continously push to catch Rosberg; or let Ricciardo and Vettel push harder than usual and still have enough life in them for a fight. It was not so long ago, in Singapore, that the tyres let Ricciardo push to close down on Rosberg for only 10 or so laps. I know that chase was only made possible by the degrading tyres, but it is still unacceptable to lose performance so quickly. And there is no need to even remind anyone how these tyres overheat after just a few laps of following the guy in front too closely, making Perez-Massa or any other sustained battles impossible.

        1. @leblep He was only following him close because of the DRS, not any other reason. He was struggling to keep up through the middle sector.

      3. … I’m sorry, motivation for passing is not what prevents passing. At all.

        If they did not have to pit the chance of position changes on track would not change one iota.

        1. spafrancorchamps
          2nd November 2016, 7:31

          You’re right. Alonso/Petrov in Abu Dhabi 2010 is the perfect example of this.

      4. There was nothing wrong with Brundle’s statement. A procession of cars unable to overtake each other is still a procession of cars unable to overtake each other regardless of which tyre they are on or how many times they have pitted.

      5. If there were no mandatory pit stops and the entire field were running the same durable compound then the cars would be closer together and would be forced to do their passing on the track.

        It’s hard to judge how that would play out without seeing it. So I wouldn’t mind seeing it, not now with the huge change to 2017 regs but it would be cool if it was tested for a year when things get boring, kind of like this qually system they tried this year.

        The #1 negative towards it I could see is drivers would tip-toe a lot for fear of ruining their only set of tyres. The importance of tyre management (something drivers already complain about) would be increase. Regardless of how durable a compound is, it can still be destroyed through over-driving.

        I’d welcome more experimentation within the regulations in general though.

        1. Tristan, durable tyres like bridgestone and michelin or, way back dunlop made, didn’t drop off a cliff, they just wore down and rarely lost any appreciable grip before races end.

      6. @hohum
        What if doesn’t mention is that their life is 111 laps of cruising at a predetermined pace that doesn’t stress them. Try pushing those same tires doing fuel adjusted qualifying lap times, and they’d fall apart within ten minutes. That’s a huge difference to the old Bridgestone and Michelin tires that could be pushed to the limit, lap after lap, with no serious loss of performance for an entire stint.
        Schumacher used to do just that quite regularly, and even when he had no one challenging him, it was awesome to watch him pushing the limits, lap after lap, in a way we haven’t seen for years.

        1. @beneboy, right, watching MSC bang in 7 laps at qualifying speed before pitting to emerge ahead whichever team had been leading until then was the only part of the refuelling era worth watching, although mighty frustrating for williams. McLaren. Benetton fans.

          1. @hohum
            So maybe mix bigger versions of those tires with the current power unit, and a low downforce aero package with a much smaller front wing, and a more equal distribution of money, and we could be getting close to a decent formula.

            1. @beneboy, too right, I’d drop mandatory pit stops as well, in fact I’d limit the number of crew in the pit lane (6?) to make tyrechanges a slower non-advantageous proposition, would save money on tyres and personnel and keep the cars in close company.

      7. @hohum, Ericsson and Palmer both effectively completed an entire race distance on the same set of medium tyres (running just one lap on a different tyre).

        I also find it rather disappointing – though hardly surprising given some of your previous comments – that your attitude to Brundle’s opinion is to imply (with your “Alzheimers” comment) that he has some sort of mental disability because he came to a different conclusion to you.

    4. Martin Brundle’s statement about the longevity of the tyres doesn’t state the full picture. There are three limits that drivers are driving to:
      1) Tyre life, is the most commonly spoken of one
      2) Fuel flow limits
      3) Powertrain life (power unit + gearbox)

      While the designed to degrade tyres were brought in to introduce variability to racing (particularly to compensate for the absence of refuelling which offered similar variability), the fuel flow limits were placed to try and place a soft limit on power developed.

      While those limits on tyres and fuel flow can still be adjusted with little financial impact, one that can’t is probably powertrain life. That was brought in to ensure that constructors did not enter into a cost competition based on power units they could afford over the season (i.e. new engines for every weekend).

      And as long as that limit exists on powertrain life, that will ultimately be the factor that still ensures drivers manage their cars and don’t do flat out racing. Drivers will still aim to do the least possible to finish in an achievable position.

      1. Thinking about it though, I wonder if removing the restrictions on powertrain life might actually help reduce engine costs.

        I presume manufacturers add some of the R&D cost onto the per-unit cost of an engine sold to a constructor. Given that most manufacturers are also constructors (Honda being the exception), I’m sure they wouldn’t mind bringing in more engines for their own teams’ competitive advantage, and they have the budget to match. We can also add Red Bull to that list, given their sizeable budget, and position at the front of the field.

        Now if that were to happen, then with more engines in circulation over the entire field, that should amortize the R&D cost over a larger number of engines, thereby bringing down the per-unit cost, which should help midfield and backmarker teams.

        I know this will result in a two-tier championship of the haves and have-nots, but I think we’re already there. As Force India have already admitted this season, fourth is the best they can hope for given their budget, and attempting to challenge the frontrunners will require a significant infusion of funds.

        1. The problem is I guess that with the restriction removed there is less incentive to make the engines last as long as they have to now (4-5 whole GP weekends). The most likely result of this is engine lifespan will reduce, meaning customer teams will have to purchase more engines too, negating any benefit from a per unit cost reduction.

          1. Martin – that’s an excellent point 👍

    5. Rosberg’s comments in the Motorsport article (regarding a penalty for Verstappen’s contact at T1 and a lack of consistency around stewarding) are so politically correct they made me groan. I generally like his approach to interviews (particularly when Ted was asking him an obnoxious question about luck a few weeks ago), but I can totally get why others criticize his robotic answers. I’m surprised no one has made a humourous website with canned Rosberg answers to any questions!

      The bit about steering offset was interesting, particularly as neither Toto nor Paddy mentioned it, unlike their comments about being concerned about Lewis’s suspension.

      1. The last time (2 years ago) Rosberg said what he really think, when he said he did his move to make a point, he got harsh respond from Lauda and Wolff. Its not a good move especially against huge tide condemnation from Lewis fans around the globe. So I think robotic answers when you are a main rival to British centrist sport and media is a smart thing to do.

        1. @ruliemaulana – you’re referring to the 2014 Spa collision? That’s a fair point, he’s now being safe and PC (but boring).

          1. @phylyp He wouldn’t need to be if it wasn’t for “everything Rosberg does, we will criticize” Hamilton fans

        2. The idea that secrecy is the best policy @ruliemaulana only applies to the particular circumstance of deliberate cheating. And if it really is 2 years since Rosberg said what he really thinks then that also makes him the least sincere person in F1, after Bernie, doncha think?

          1. @lockup everyone can assumed that he is a dishonest person. But when you face a more talented rival, the only change to winning is to be focus on yourself, less distraction, avoid controversies, learn more on technical side then hope for the best.
            I can only see its the right way to do.

            1. Well think of Berger @ruliemaulana. He was seriously up against it too, and not even as quick as Nico Rosberg, but he didn’t pull a Mirabeau or Rascasse or Spa. He commands respect despite being slower than his teammate. In a sport, being sporting is the minimum requirement.

              And it’s not ‘assumed’ that Rosberg is dishonest. In that Telegraph article linked above their F1 correspondent says he “by general consensus intentionally went off in Monaco qualifying two years ago to stop Hamilton setting a time.”

            2. @lockup yep. Robotic answers respond to British centrist consensus in British centrist sport and British centrist media is a smart thing to do. Less controversies more focus.

            3. Nothing to do with nationalism @ruliemaulana

        3. Yes but he wasn’t being criticised for speaking his mind, he was being criticised because he implied he hit another car on purpose.

      2. I don’t find his character robotic in the slightest. Incredibly calculated, but hardly robotic.

        The post race on Sky was quite funny “did he really get away with that?!” “oh, what were you saying?”

        1. I’ll take NR’s ‘robotic’ comments, if that’s what some might like to call them, over LH’s ‘conspiratorial’ comments any day.

          1. @robbie – granted, I agree with that 👍

    6. “Otherwise there could be an asterisk under many champions’ names, and Alonso could have his own sub section of near misses”

      Really good point by Brundle. “Coulda-Woulda” caveats wont figure in the history books would it? If Nico Rosberg wins this year, its because he had more points than anybody else. He had his opportunities, and he took them. Fair play. Is as good as Lewis, quite possibly not, but thats what’s on trial here.

      If Lewis retires tomorrow, history would look upon him as one of the best to have raced in F1. That sentiment will not change. Whereas Nico, would never classed in the same category.

    7. Is the Fittipaldi team video a type of trailer for a longer video? Is it going to be a documentary?

      1. Doh. Just read the video’s description and answered my own question:

        An early trailer for the upcoming film about Fittipaldi F1, Icarus’s Wings – The True Story of Fittipaldi F1 Team, produced by Itoby Films.

        The documentary is due for release in 2017, with interviews with Emerson and Wilsinho, plus drivers Ingo Hoffmann, Alex Dias Ribeiro and Chico Serra.

    8. Just watched the race highlights. Nico, stay well away from Verstappen. Well Away.

    9. “their projected life from the medium tyres was 111 laps”

      Argh. I hate these made to degrade Pirelli tyres that fall apart after only 111 laps!

      *Sarcasm off

      1. @eurobrun, You had your sarcasm turned off !?

    10. ColdFly F1 (@)
      2nd November 2016, 7:58

      The stewards usually give some leeway in the mad dash at the start of a race and through the first lap, there’s so much going on that they would be overwhelmed with potential enquiries. That’s what happens when you line 22 cars up together and start as one.

      That actually makes sense to me. And based on that I understand now (not saying ‘agree’ yet) why Hamilton and Verstappen did not get a penalty on lap 1.
      Having said that, it’s still wrong if a driver can cut a chicane without losing some time. When you allow that to happen on lap 1 or lap x it will become part of their split second decision making process and they will decide to either brake later when defending, or stop flat-spotting, and take the easy way out (through).
      I always prefer gravel, but do like the 2nd best solution where after missing a chicane they have to take a detour – like the final chicane in Montreal.

    11. I have believed for many years that in those situations a driver should be made to go through a penalty box area at pit lane speed limit so that he takes some serious pain for his mistake.

      That is an absolutely brilliant idea by Brundle! Wow, how is his relationship with Brawn? Those two need to have a chat.

      I really don’t like the “lasting advantage” definition in the rules. The matter shouldn’t be of whether an advantage was gained and if the situation returns to how it was before the run-off. Leaving the track should definitely result in a disadvantage to that driver, not just a return to where they were before the run-off.

    12. Regarding stewarding consistency… I’m sure between us F1F users we have a wealth of knowledge of other sports besides F1, so a question – can anyone name a sport that doesn’t generate fan and/or participant complaints and discussions about how the referees/umpires/whoever else are not entirely consistent – or are occasionally ‘incorrect’ in our eyes – in their application of the rules?

      Kind of get the feeling we spend far too much time moaning about humans being humans and thinking our sport is a special case…

      1. There are sports with a bad reputation for inconsistent stewarding, Indycar being guilty of that on and off. However, just because another sport is worse doesn’t mean we can’t be critical when it happens. Just because Problem A is bigger then Problem B doesn’t mean Problem B isn’t still a problem.

      2. @neilosjames The obvious big sporting competitions examples of Football, Rugby etc are quite different though in that the mistakes by referees are normally due to not seeing it in the moment and making a wrong decision. If they had access to lots of replays from a range of camera angles then their decisions would likely be much better as the video evidence clears up the situation.

        Things like vague rules (gaining a lasting advantage), not giving out penalties on the first lap (unless you’re Romain Grosjean or whoever isn’t flavour of the month at any given time), applying track limits in some arbitrary fashion which no-one understands, applying penalties based on impact and not the action of the offending driver and applying penalties differently depending on whether or not one of the drivers is in a fight for the WDC are reasons why stewarding in F1 is so heavily criticized.

        Alonso hardly seemed to be on the circuit during the US Grand Prix and things like this make the sport look stupid (especially if there is no penalty even when he does it in making an overtake). It’s like in a football game if a player is running down the wing and to avoid a tackle takes the ball off the pitch but carries on before bringing it back into play – the referee waves play on on the basis that the defending player didn’t commit to a tackle so there was “no lasting advantage”. Football fans don’t like referees who ruin the ‘flow’ of the game by constantly blowing their whistle, but wouldn’t stand for such blatant rule breaking being ignored.

    13. Funny thing about Brundle mentioning asterisks and Kimi’s championship. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it pointed out that it was achieved with a brake test.

      1. @lockup Please explain?

        1. At the last race in Brazil, in Turn 2 off the start Kimi brake-tested Lewis behind him, and that let Alonso through, which triggered Lewis into losing it and running off at T4. I’ve never tried to work out if that would have gained Lewis what he needed later on, and nobody knows if that made a difference to his moog valve problem, with the off he had a bit later trying to catch up, but anyway the brake test was one ingredient that day.

          1. @lockup Even if Kimi did brake test Lewis at turn 2 I fail to see how that triggered the mistake lewis made at turn 4 let alone the gear issue or whatever it was later on.

            and to be honest the ferrari’s were simply faster that day anyway. they finished nearly 60 seconds ahead of alonso despite spending most of the 2nd half of the race not pushing that hard & cruising to the 1-2.

            1. It put Hamilton behind Alonso, whom he then tried to re-pass at T4. And the pace of the Ferraris wasn’t the point it was Lewis’ 5th place.

    14. Brundle is right we didn’t see a great deal of overtaking in Mexico with a durable tyre, but that’s a track characteristic. Mexico doesn’t have corners or sequences of corners that give cars room to pass or multiple lines to attack the car ahead on. Any drivers brave enough to take a lunge were massively compromised in the corner and unable to complete the move.

      But what we did see thanks to the tyre durability were drivers attempting to pass for lap after lap without their tyres being shot. It was still entertaining to watch them battle even if a little disappointing to not see the passes completed and refreshing to not hear messages about backing off to preserve tyres. They were left to fight, sadly on a track that doesn’t allow passing.

      Showbiz tyres wouldn’t have made this a better race. Seeing a position change because a driver is making a pit stop doesn’t entertain. Seeing a driver yield to preserve their tyres doesn’t entertain. Seeing a driver with shot tyres not able to hold a car behind and putting up no fight doesn’t entertain. The track was the problem here, not the tyres and given then amount of run off around the first set of corners they have the space to tweak those corners to promote some overtaking. It would only need some minor tweaking to the width of the track and angles of the corner to make it harder to defend.

      1. ^ You get my vote for COTD, @philipgb

        1. @philipgb I also agree with your comments and taking it further, to me it remains that the bigger enemy is aero dependence. We have seen rock solid tires in the past, we have seen intentionally poor tires too, and still processions. As you have correctly pointed out sometimes it is the track that simply doesn’t invite much passing as compared to other tracks. But the common denominator is that cars dependent on clean air suffer greatly in dirty air.

          It’s a bit moot right now as we are about to be finally done with these gadget tires that have not enhanced the product on the track nor upped viewership. I can’t wait to see what comes with the drastic changes next year, and remain steadfast that in spite of varying opinions as to what might come, I can’t see anything other than great potential in this new chapter.

          I’m basing that on obviously the tires that will degrade by tread wear rather than needing some finicky elusive temp window that makes a driver look amateur when not there. But also on the assumption that the added downforce they’re talking about will come as much from ground effects as aero, which overall should make the cars less negatively effected in dirty air for closer racing no matter the track.

          1. fingers crossed!

      2. Completely agree @philipgb & I actually really liked that aspect of the race as it was really nice to see a decent lap after lap battle with the driver behind having to actually try to find a way past rather than just been driven past due to the DRS or tyre effect.

        While Perez didn’t manage to get past Massa I was watching Sergio’s OnBoard & it was nice watching him having to try & get creative & throw a few dives up the inside & try taking different lines through corners to try & get a better exit to have a peek up the inside of the next. And it was the same with Vettel earlier in the race when he was behind the Williams.

        While no overtake ended up happening there was always a possibility that something could happen & more than a few cases where something was tried which opened up that possibility & that sort of drawn out fight with uncertainty & a dozen moments where something is tried is far more exciting to me than a lot of the ‘racing’ seen since 2011. And in that long, drawn out race if something does happen it’s always far more exciting & far more meaningful than your average turn up & pass DRS/Tyre generated move.

      3. +1, thanks for explaining it far better than I could.

    15. Yes! Good news

    Comments are closed.