Daniil Kvyat, Toro Rosso, Interlagos, 2016

Alonso suggests covering wheels for safer wet races

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Fernando Alonso suggests F1 could adopt GT car-style bodywork to improve visibility in wet races.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Paris selfie ✌🏻🏆

A photo posted by NICO ROSBERG (@nicorosberg) on

Comment of the day

@Robbie has an optimistic take on next year’s regulations:

I’m hoping we see come true something Jacques Villeneuve opined on 20 years ago when they introduced the grooved tires and he got hauled up on the FIA carpet for calling them a joke. He said at the time, (paraphrasing): ‘Give us back the big fat slicks they had in the 70’s. They created so much drag on the straights that you had to run less wing in order to achieve respectable top speeds and not be a sitting duck, while in turn you had mechanical grip from the tires, thus killing two birds with one stone. Smaller wings less negatively affected in dirty air, plus mechanical grip from the tires.’

So I’m hoping that no matter the new wing format for 2017, the teams will have to be mindful of how much downforce they want to use with respect to top speeds, and that the ground effects and tyres grab the bigger portion of the grip with aerodynamics coming in third in importance.

Surely (not holding my breath but hopeful) they have learned by now that dirty air is the enemy that even DRS and gadget tires hasn’t solved, and that aerodynamics needs to take a little less emphasis. I am under no illusion that they are ready to eliminate their addiction to aerodynamic downforce, nor do I expect that, but they should know by now after numerous formats that it is always the limiting factor to close racing, so they need mechanical grip and ground effects to take over and force the teams through regs to emphasise aerodynamic downforce less.
@Robbie

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Dermot Farrelly and Carlo Grlj!

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

Toro Rosso ushered in Daniel Ricciardo and Jean-Eric Vergne as they showed Sebastien Buemi and Jaime Alguersuari the door on this day five years ago:

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

  • 69 comments on “Alonso suggests covering wheels for safer wet races”

    1. @robbie, Congrats on COTD, I have my fingers crossed for 17. I’m not a fan of DRS especially as it has been pretty much negated by the high-deg tyres, 2 gimmicks cancelling each other out but making the racing worse. Next year let’s hope that the tyres wont melt when following in close proximity to the car ahead, AND the threat of DRS will force the designers not to build in too much drag/downforce, it’s going to be an interesting conundrum for the teams at any track where there are passing opportunities.

      1. We have to remain hopeful. I think some of the new regs are quite clever, and if things turn out as expected it is possible to nail that sweet spot between aero and mechanical grip. The wider cars will also help on that regard.

        Lately I been thinking, wouldn’d it be great if Pirelli played it save for next year due to the fact that the tests were made with mule cars, and came up with a super durable tyre? We wouldn’t have problems with degrading tyres while cars are following each-other, which I think is the main problem currently. And in the corners even if cars are close, the mechanical grip from the wider tyres are cars would overcome the lost of down-force from driving in dirty air.

        Unfortunately we will have to live with DRS. They could at least reduce it effect, but that is not going to happen either

        1. Thanks you two and thanks @keithcollantine for cotd. It’s fascinating to me how consistent JV has been and how the cars are about to go back to something much more similar to what JV had to win the 97 WDC in and that he didn’t want to see changed. It’s going to be so interesting to see what comes in 2017, a big difference being they will look pre-98 but will have the new torquey pu’s powering them. Can’t wait.

    2. I think with so much attention on Verstappen and Kvyat, Sainz has been completely overlooked this season. He’s done a solid job to be fair to him.

      Also, there’s still whinging about Verstappen. If somebody thinks having a driver that young in F1 gives a bad impression, maybe the best thing is to not bring it up all the time and stop drawing attention to it.

      All half of these former drivers do is go on and on and on about him. We know that the driver of the day on f1.com isn’t very good, but there is a reason why Verstappen keeps winning it.

      When Verstappen was first announced, he was promised to be a young and fast fighter that would make it more exciting – and for once, what was said actually happened… and some people are still complaining about it.

      Why don’t we go back to pay drivers then? Surely seeing a bunch of rubbish drivers struggling will make it look really really difficult.

      1. The trouble is twofold: the teens don’t get to develop properly (imagine how good Verstappen would be if he’d learned to do what he does without barging people off – something that would have been quite feasible had he spent another 1-2 years in development series) and F1 ends up looking like something that can be done effortlessly, thus making the achievements of everyone in it (regardless of age) look the less.

        It’s not because one specific teenager has made it, but because several have now done so, and that even being both young and very inexperienced appearing to have no effect upon ability to keep up with rivals (Daniil Kyvat being the classic example of how this isn’t once-in-a-generation and of how a driver not apparently ready for GP2 was apparently able to handle F1 quite competently).

        A former driver speaking of only this matter is not good, but it’s been made clear that if nobody speaks out, F1 will continue to be easier than, say, GP2, and people will drift away in droves no matter how much or little anyone talks about it. Jacques isn’t calling for pay drivers to come back – he’s calling for a grid of people ready to be challenged (in a way that elements of the grid – old and young – apparently aren’t right now), to get something challenging enough to be worth their attention.

        1. I think verstappen has been good enough to be in that red bull. He is clearly pushing the envelope of the rules which imho is a sign of champion. Not sign of lack of experience or weakness. I’m not saying what he was doing was correct but it is the problem of fia by being so incredibly bad at interpreting the rules and assigning penalties.

          I think it is a huge misconception that a driver needs to suffer in midfield teams to earn a winning car in F1. Only reason I can think of that being true is a moral reason. Earning the chance by “hard work. Hard work being stuck in useless car. Instead of being given a chance on merit. I think results are the thing that matters and should be the king. Not some honor of driving back of the grid for couple of seasons to “earn” a chance. The drivers who were champion worthy in recent (20) years (hamilton, alonso, räikkönen, schumacher, vettel, kubica, heidfeld) have all been able to drive well from the first race they got into the sport. After all they come from the top teams from previous categories.

          It is extremely rare that a winning driver can improve so much that he would benefit from being in mid field teams. I’m not saying that everyone can be put into top team after driving a gp2 car for example. But the champions certainly can.

          The years are long gone when the cars were difficult and complex to learn to handle with their manual gearboxes and the skills that go with it to abuse the gearbox and the engine for full effect while downshifting while dancing on the 3 pedals without mishifting. The individual tire and car development and lack of telemetry for setting up a car. The driver is more physical part of the car nowadays and it is more about raw driving skill than it was 20 years ago when you needed to develop your muscle memory, technical understanding and racecraft almost completely on your own. Now literally every driver goes through enough young driver programmes and racing schools to learn more in their teens that a driver like brundle had chance to learn before their mid 20s.

          I think the early and mid 20s are the peak of the modern career of a driver. It is rare that a driver like alonso can still perform at that level in his mid 30s. Meanwhile a driver like verstappen or hamilton comes and shows skill is all that matters. Raw speed is the king. Everything else can be taught. Yet people say drivers like wehrlein are not ready. I think it is wrong. These drivers are already winners and champions and series like dtm and gp2 are not some amateur level hobby racing. F1 is not as different as people think. In difficulty f1 has become easier and the lower categories have became harder.

          1. You seem to be missing part of the point that both Villeneuve and @alianora-la-canta are making. It isn’t that Verstappen should have staid in a midfield car for a longer period of time. He should have spent a couple more years in the lower categories finetuning his racecraft. And by racecraft I don’t mean his knowledge of how to drive the car (of which he clearly has enough), but his knowledge of how to take part in a race amid fellow-competitors. That second bit is born of experience and maturity, not talent.

            F1 should be the pinnacle of motorsport that you aspire to, but you also have to work for it to get there. That way, if every driver arriving in F1 had this maturity, then F1 would be world-class both in terms of car tech, but also in terms of the drivers’ talent and racecraft in every way. F1 would be “playing with the big boys”, which implies you have some growing up to do before you can be a “big boy”. (Or girl – no misogeny intended here, just using an existing expression.)

            1. That’s a crap argument that I ONLY ever hear about young drivers. We never hear the whining when it’s an older driver deciding track space is his and blocking/leaning or outright hitting another driver. Then it’s called cagey and veteran. You can’t have both and it just makes you sound like a crotchety old man yelling for the kids to get off your lawn. But then that seems the F1 and sportscar fan way, always whine and moan but never allow yourself to enjoy even a fun second of action, it was always better 20 years ago in those rose glasses.

            2. @Ex F1 Fan, thank you for your summary judgement and execution of my comment. I am sorry I touched a raw nerve of yours, but I didn’t mean to say what you think I said.

              It’s not that I’m an old man wearing rose-tinted glasses, it’s more a question of idealism probably. The root of my message is exactly that I dislike “blocking/leaning or outright hitting another driver” regardless of who is doing it and that I would prefer clean, gentlemanly in F1. I know very well that experienced F1 drivers also resort to dirty tactics and they have been doing it for a long time now (Senna/Prost or Schumacher anyone?), and if I had the time I could/would write a whole manifesto against it. But arguably inexperienced drivers are more susceptible to immature driving simply because they lack experience, and it is this inexperience factor that I was talking about.

              And please don’t twist my words into an ageist opinion, because I don’t have anything against young drivers because of their age. A lot of drivers who come into F1 at a young age nowadays have been racing since childhood and have accumulated plenty of experience in lower categories. But some haven’t and I feel that, in spite of his enormous talent, Max Verstappen would have benefitted from a year ot two in the lower categories. Red Bull took a risk on him and it has now paid off. Max has come good, but I still think he wasn’t ready at the time and that some of his enthousiastic moves early on didn’t belong on a race track.

    3. In regards to COTD, if Villeneuve said that 20 years ago, it makes you realise that F1 has no interest in close racing….sad.
      They introduced the grooved tyres to slow the cars down right? Yet they didn’t reduce downforce instead? Yeah, that makes total sense lol. No wonder ‘Trulli Train’ was a thing.

      1. Michael Brown (@)
        14th December 2016, 0:36

        Weren’t grooved tires introduced on safety grounds?

        1. @mbr-9

          Yeah to slow the cars down. They were introduced in the midst of a tyre war where tyres were becoming very sticky and it was seen as a way of limiting grip before the notion of designed to degrade was brought in.

          1. Tristam Douglas
            14th December 2016, 8:00

            Grooved tyres was Max Mosely’s idea. He first proposed it during the ground effect era for the same reasons and it was thrown out. Jacques likened it to driving a Formula Ford.

      2. There wasn’t perceived to be much problem with close racing when the grooved tyres were introduced, as fuel-in pit strategy was still novel in those days. While door-to-door overtaking was preferred to be in quality than quantity (I cannot imagine a 1990s paddock person regarding a 53% increase in overtaking to be worth reading about), it was believed that differences in team performance on-track could be partially resolved through having the alternative pathway of having cannier strategy than rivals.

        Without fuel-in pit strategy in 2010, there was nothing to disguise the actual effect of F1’s state on a regular day of racing (nor of the effects of rain the quality of racing, which blancmange tyres and DRS were originally meant to reproduce, however pale the imitation). That was when quantity of overtakes started to be associated with close racing.

        1. I’ll agree with you that at the time strategy and pitstops (especially with fuel) was still novel and teams were trying out things to make that interesting @alianora-la-canta. And maybe inside the paddock nobody was thinking about how many overtakes there were.
          And off course there was quite a large gap between cars, making it somewhat easier to overtake other cars as well as having more reliability at play.

          But it certainly is not true that nobody cared about the amount of overtakes, just they/we counted strategy passes within that, even on TV.

          1. i can’t remember a time when people weren’t moaning about turbulent air when following another car. i’ve been following the sport closely since 1995. in fact, i think 1995 was a reasonably good year for overtaking on track. 1996 was when i clearly recall people beginning to whine about it.

            the big problem was 1998 and the introduction of the narrow track cars, which made the slipstream effect radically less powerful.

      3. @ivz Part of the story of the grooved tires is that after their introduction, which was an effort to slow cornering speeds, teams started to pile on the aero R&D to make up for the tires. F1 has been addicted to the science of aero downforce for at least the last 20 years. It is fascinating, and it sure gets a car around a track more quickly, particularly for cars able to run in clean air like during quali, or as the leader of a race. But for close racing? We’ve seen several formats since 1997, and they have all involved parades and the same physics over and over, with or without DRS and with or without good tires…cars dependent on clean air are much less optimum in dirty air, handcuffing trailing drivers.

    4. Michael Brown (@)
      14th December 2016, 0:39

      I’d much rather have talented teenagers in F1 than pay drivers.

      Personally, I would do away with the superlicence points and minimum age rule. What if Raikkonen couldn’t get into F1 because he didn’t have the experience according to the FIA’s rules?

      1. What if the talented teenager is a pay driver? i.e. Lance Stroll?

      2. @mbr-9, you’ve picked about the worst example you could because, under the old superlicence regulations that were in force at the time, Kimi should never have been given a superlicence in the first place.

        Kimi had done even fewer races, and all of those in even lower series, in comparison to Verstappen when he was signed by Sauber (just 23 races in the Formula Renault 2.0 UK series, the Formula Renault 2.0 Eurocup and a couple of European Formula Ford races) and was not even remotely close to achieving the minimum requirements that were in place at the time.

        The only reason why Kimi was given a superlicence at the time was because Peter Sauber begged every single other team principle, along with Max Mosely, to agree to override the experience requirements and to grant the licence to Kimi on the basis of the test sessions he did for Sauber.

        1. That loophole exists in the current regulations also, albeit given in less blunt terms and now formally requiring Bernie to consent as well.

        2. Michael Brown (@)
          14th December 2016, 17:15

          Yeah, I have egg on my face

    5. I really think it’s the time to rethink the whole concept of a formula car, because let’s face it – it’s a disaster and anachronism. It was common in the first half of the 20th century only because engineers were looking for a way to make cars lighter and didn’t care about aero or safety. But come on, it’t 2016 now. Time to scrap that idea.

      If you’ve got wheels closed, you don’t have to develop all these complicated front wings. Cars are much less susceptible to the dirty air, performance returns on aero investment are diminished, closer grid, better racing.
      More straight line speed, longer braking distances, better racing.
      Less tiny and fragile parts – less damage prone cars and guess what? Yes, better racing.
      Aldo there is much more room for design and the cars would look much more diverse than they do now.

      The only argument I’ve heard for the open wheels is “They’ve always been like that, it’s tradition and blablablabla….” but come on, it’s not even a real argument, it’s just a typical unwillingness to accept changes.

      1. You also don’t need F1, as there is already an entire discipline of successful series with closed wheels.

      2. Go watch one of those many closed-wheel races then. There are plenty.

        1. I currently watch three of them as well as F1. There’s space on the calendar for everyone, but not if F1 surrenders the things that make it unique. (I also think there are good ways of improving F1 safety that don’t require closed wheels or cockpits).

      3. If you’ve got wheels closed, you don’t have to develop all these complicated front wings.

        Are you sure of that @albedo? Because when I look at the likes of the Audi and Porsche and Toyota in Le Mans, I see hugely complicated front ends.

        Yes, having wheel arches makes it easier (you can also put some fins on there, and off course they shield the tyres), but downforce is still best generated right at the front of the car, so that you can use the airflow over it’s whole body.

        1. @albedo I think you hit the nail on the head. I fully agree, and have made that point myself before. Tradition is standing in the way for innovation.

          @bascb, I think the point is that instead of the wings we see now, the cars could have front diffusers, which should be more effective. Obviously complexity will not go away, F1 engineers will make sure of that, but at least it could potentially be less susceptible to dirty air.

          Also this video with Pat Symonds is interesting with regard to front elements of the car:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ACRDel2xew
          Check 05:40 – 07:20

          Personally I would easily give up traditional F1 car design for a RB X2010 or Mclaren MP4-X design, if they are indeed more effective machines.

          1. Tradition does stand for something when it’s at the very fundamental core of what you’re doing. It’s OPEN WHEEL racing.

            1. Michael Brown (@)
              14th December 2016, 16:50

              @selbbin The definition of F1 is single-seater racing. You can cover the wheels, close the cockpit, and remove the wings. It’s still F1.

            2. I think you are absolutely correct. If you change totally the way the cars are then why have F1 at all?

              I think we are forgetting that F1 probably has more of a fan base than all these other types of motorsport put together with maybe the exception of the WRC. If you want to send people away make these changes.

    6. F1 = Open Cockpit

      Open wheels are cool

      Also, they’ve always been like that, it’s tradition, and blablablabla

    7. I like Alonso’s idea. I say when the wet tyres go on, wheel guards also go on; doesn’t need to be anymore complicated that the wheel guards that go onto Hot Rods.

      1. I don’t think the solution should be coming from covering the wheels @formulales, but yes, I think he has a good point that apart from their grip levels, the sport, and their tyre supplier especially should look at how to reduce spray forming, because I would say that was the more dangerous aspect of the last wet races and the prime reason for red flags and SC periods

        1. Aerodynamics and tyre groove design have a big impact in the way spray is formed. We have to see how it is managed with next year’s package, and if necessary come up with solutions if it is overwhelming difficult to manage a wet race.

          Otherwise I expect the best drivers in the world to deal with it

        2. What if it starts raining half way through a race ? How long would it take to fit wheel guards because you want a set of wets ? Most would be tempted to stay out on inters and that could cause bigger problems.
          I guess you could stop the race every time it rains to allow for figment of wheel guards !!

          1. Since it is quite possible (or rather, expected) that the wheel guards would help areodynamics and lessen the drag effects Rick, I think they would actually seek reasons to get them on.

      2. Do Indy Cars race in the rain, or is it cancelled as per Nascar? I was wondering if the rear bodywork structure on an Indy Car cuts down the amount of spray produced . . .

        1. Indycar doesn’t race ovals in the rain, because they use special low down-force areo kits. They do race regular tracks in the wet. I remember a wet race in Detroit where the spray was definitely an issue for the drivers, as the rear wheels are not really fully enclosed.

          1. @ferrox-glideh Thanks, pity really. I was wondering if this was a partial solution for F1.

            1. @nickwyatt I guess the reasons Indycar left the back wheels semi-exposed was because it is easier to replace the rear pods if they become damaged during the race (like a front wing), and it is cheaper to make and transport smaller pieces of carbon fiber. Also, there is the prestige factor that comes with being able to call the sport “open wheeled racing”, with it’s link to racing history.
              But I bet the rain spray would be less with enclosed rear wheels, and would indeed offer a partial solution. Cheers!

    8. Wheel guards like a caterham has. Nothing fancy, just round the wheel although it will just dump the water back onto the road and will slow down track drying time.

      But more to the point I get the feeling that whichever group has been working on improving overtaking for however many years was really stuck in a rut. With no idea how to progress and when someone said the cars are too slow they jumped up and said ‘we can make them faster, that’s easy’ and promptly spent an afternoon at the pub deciding what to do

      1. Lewisham Milton
        14th December 2016, 14:04

        Tony Fernandes missed a trick – should’ve fitted them on the F1 cars when he renamed his team Caterham!

        I just get the impression there’s room for improvement in the tyre design. Some of the drivers have experience of better wet tyres, from manufacturers other than Pirelli (maybe Japanese brands, or sportscar tyre suppliers)

    9. It must be embarrassing for a man of Alonso’s years to be contractually bound to constantly wear a baseball cap with a massive logo on it atop his head. I’d like his money, sure, but it’s a shame they have to be dressed like teenagers!

    10. @keithcollantine the Globo article doesn’t say exactly that. Don’t know if you translated from google

      A better translation would be “Ecclestone fears Wherlein in the Mercedes; The big boss favours Bottas”

      The article then says that Ecclestone is worried about the competitiveness of Wherlein, and fears that F1 could lose if Wherlein doesn’t manage to bring the fight to Lewis, hence favouring Bottas.

      Then the article says that Ecclestone is in constant contact with Wolff, and this information comes from a source close to Globo Esporte. So I don’t know how trustworthy that source is, nevertheless it wouldn’t be crazy to believe that that is actually true.

      There is also a deep analysis on Mercedes possibilities, but nothing new, apart from Nasr prospects of going to Williams if Bottas moves to Mercedes

      If anyone wants some part of the article translated, just let me know

      1. Welcome @lockup

        Regarding Nasr, they say that if he goes to Williams, Banco do Brasil will reconsider their decision of not sponsoring him. And that sponsorship is valued at 14 million euros (there is even a press-release from Banco do Brasil to Globo Esporte stating that).

        This can be interesting, and I don’t know how much pressure is being made by the Brazilian entities to make sure Bottas goes to Williams, as it seems it is the only way they can guarantee a Brazilian driver on the grid. The bosses down at Interlagos must be eager for news as well, Nasr can be good for business, now that fans will redirect their focus from Massa to him.

        If Ecclestone is also playing a part in this, it would be interesting to know how badly he wants to maintain the tradition that dates back 1970, and keep at least one Brazilian in the grid, or if he does care at all.

        I’m sure Claire is not receiving calls only from Toto.

        1. Hmmm Nasr @johnmilk. Yes I see the Brazilian connection, but… Nasr who was seen off by Eriksson, tho had a good Brazil. Nasr + Stroll? That’s a tailender lineup, really. I don’t see how it can fit in with hiring Paddy Lowe and using the Stroll $$$ to move up.

          1. Don’t like it either @lockup, but I can understand business wise that it could make sense. And the article does hint at that.

            They certainly play up a bit Nasr possibilties, due to his nationality. Even tough I would prefer proper talent on that Williams, I can see it happening…

            1. Hard to guess isn’t it @johnmilk, but ultimately it’s Frank Williams making the call. My instinct is he’ll hang onto Bottas, cos otherwise I don’t think the team can finish in the top 5 even with a good car.
              Unless they can get Sainz, maybe, that might save the day. Tho if Sainz can be winkled out he could be taken by Merc, possibly. All fun anyway; thank goodness Rosberg quit :)

            2. My feeling is the same about Bottas @lockup. They really have to keep him, or if they lose him snatch someone with equivalent talent.

              I wonder if Williams could take the 2017 season as transition and adaption to the new rules, and then come stronger in 2018. And for that they would need financial flexibility. (Don’t think this is probable though)

              Rosber did gave us a fantastic off-season. I don’t remember seeing so much movement around F1

    11. Covered rear tires! What a concept… And why not…

    12. Hahaha, that hilarious Villeneuve.. seriously dude…

    13. In the original complaint by Villeneuve referred to by @Robbie he claimed that moving to grooved tyres would destroy formula one because it would make the cars easy to drive thereby allowing anyone to take part. Today we’re told, by Villeneuve, that F1 is too easy because young drivers are coming in, though grooved tyres are long gone. The only consistency from Villenueve is that he consistently criticises F1 whatever it does. For me it’s like Alonso’s attempts to make his own driving look better by putting a perspective around it which makes it look favourable, in Villeneuve’s case (like several other ex-F1 drivers such as Mansell and Stewart) it’s much easier because they just criticise the current cars and drivers and talk about how much better it was in their day (back in the 90s we were being told by drivers from the 70s about how the modern cars were easy to drive and how their was no overtaking any more…).

      I assume that Villenueve preferred the days when you could achieve mediocrity in low quality racing categories before being picked up by Indycar and/or F1 teams because of your surname rather than this crazy idea that performing well in lower categories might actually be a better measure of talent.

      1. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XT0Sp4SNBlY

        @jerseyf1 It sounds to me like you are reaching a bit in order to criticize JV. Notice in the video he is calling the grooves tires limiting and that they numb the feel. It would seem those same sentiments have been echoed of the tires they have recently been dealing with, which are thankfully gone. JV doesn’t exactly say as you suggest, that F1 is too easy because young drivers are coming in, but that a trend toward teenagers entering can give the wrong impression that F1 is too easy. There’s a difference in what he is saying and the words you are putting in his mouth.

        JV has been extremely consistent all along in his believe that F1 should be the pinnacle and should be difficult and challenging. Note that they are now finally heading toward cars just like they last were when JV won the WDC in 97, and that he complained about their changing as being the wrong direction for F1 back then. But you are taking license to say he is criticizing today’s cars, and drivers, and saying it was much better in his day, suggesting he is just trying to prop himself up. Nowhere is he saying those things nor does he need to prop himself up. And your last paragraph? Completely unfair and merely exposes your dislike for the man without factual backing.

      2. I’ve always found JV to be a well informed critic of F1. He may rub people the wrong way, but he always backs what he says up with salient points. As an “armchair expert”, I certainly respect his professional views.

        1. Yeah they don’t come more well informed than him. Lost his Dad to F1 as a kid, and ended up as WDC himself. Still associates with close friends who are currently still working in F1, particularly Jock Clear now at Ferrari, who was JV’s race engineer at Williams. And with everything else on his CV, only he, Fittipaldi, and Andretti stand out amongst themselves when you include CART, Indy 500’s, and Lemans, in the history of racing careers.

          1. Gilles was my hero when I was a kid, and I think that Jacques did his father proud.

    14. Villeneuve running his mouth again – how tasteful!

      1. Perhaps try to open your mind to what he is saying. He only wants a better, more enthralling product on the track like all F1 fans do. He wants F1 to be the pinnacle and actually look and act like it. I don’t know why you would prefer something less.

    15. Alonso comment got me thinking.

      How about blowers or suction devices near the wheels to eliminate excessive spray in the wet?

      This will probably wreak havoc with the aerodynamics of the car but it is more aesthetically pleasing than covers over the wheels.

      I’m not an engineer. Do any of you think this is feasible?

      1. I am pretty sure @willemcecci, that blower or suction pumps would be possible, and that teams would be very happy to experiment with how to use those instead of only having the ‘break-cooling’ and front wing area to divert air around the tyres, but for that same reason I am sure it is not going to happen. Think of the Brabham BT46 fan-car …

        1. @bosyler or they could redirect the exhausts

    16. It seemed to me the cars need some sort of lights on them when driving in those conditions because there were times when it looked like the only way a driver knew a car was in front was because the charging light on the car in front was on. For example, they could have white “day time driving lights” on the front, something like yellow lights in the middle, and red “tail lights” at the rear.
      As a thought, maybe they need something akin to a mud flap on the tyres in the wet weather. These could be aerodynamically shaped or “V” shaped so as to reduce that resonance you see at the back of cars when they are driving in the wet.

    17. For all his unfortunate choices – I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – Villeneuve always did campaign for purer racing with less electronics and less aero and that will always be a check on the positive side of his ledger.

    18. They’ve been able to race with the spray since the dawn of F1. It’s super hard, which makes it a super challenge, which makes it super exciting.

      Let’s keep neutering the sport until all the fun is gone, shall we?

    19. I think Guti wasn’t that bad comparing to Romain. Actually if anything Romain was poor and inconsistent. I think if we cut them some slack for Haas being a new team both were average.

    20. We have to rethink this f1 show..its much too dangerous…suggestion:

      Install a simulator in the home of every driver and let them compete in cyberspace ..

      There is a lot to gain:
      1.The co2 for transport and polution is a minimum.
      2.They don’t risk a flight crash
      3.They don’t have to bother with the weather – and ALO the rain and sun
      4.We could vote for the winner – and secure a british WC by giving a no crash and penalty patch
      5.They could allow drivers under age of 18 – even a 3 year old could drive
      6.The sport would be killed even faster than today – to get rid of all the fans in a hurry

      Smart don’t you all think😉😊😆

      Happy new year

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.