Zanardi joins criticism of ‘over-regulated’ F1

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Former F1 driver Alex Zanardi says F1 stewards have made the sport “boring”.

Join RaceFans on Facebook

Don't miss anything from RaceFans - join us on Facebook here to see whenever a new article has been added:

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

McLaren’s nomenclature re-categorisation initiative deemed sub-optimal:

I think it’s a pity. Okay, Ron Dennis’s gone so they’re free to return to orange as everyone expects them to, which will be great, but the MP4 designation was one of the things that made McLaren distinctive. It’s is a bit like Ferrari deciding to remove the prancing horse from the side of its cars, or Monaco shifting practice to Friday. One of the little traditions of the sport has been lost.

Then again, it’s hardly going to make the cars go any slower. If they start getting podiums again (wins seem a little too much to hope for at this stage), nobody’s going to care much.
Duncan Snowden

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Mantas Degutis!

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

Stirling Moss scored the final victory of his career in a non-championship race at Warwick Farm in Sydney 55 years ago 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.

61 comments on “Zanardi joins criticism of ‘over-regulated’ F1”

  1. OMG, 1st. it’s a majority, now it’s 50/50, how about we just say there is not enough evidence to decide conclusively whether we should or should not mandate the “Halo”.

    1. +1. Next thing you know there’s division, uncertainty, then it goes ahead because only a few people want it to. (Where has this happened before?)

      1. Well, it won’t be the first vote won by the one with the 2nd highest vote.

    2. The Halo nor the windscreen are the answers to the problem of the driver’s head exposure. They are likely to create new problems rather than eliminate existing problems.

      1. Has anyone thought – if they introduce the halo, wont then codemasters have to integrate that as part of the game. Can you imagine driving on your sim with 3 huge black lines on the screen!!

    3. Pure nonsense. The drivers don’t really care about evidence. They just have strong opinions about the whole idea. Whether they like how it looks, whether it makes their team more competitive or just accepting the risk that goes with not having it just so they don’t have to deal with it (not liking the pillar in front of you). And I’m sure some drivers are pressured by their teams to vote against it because some of the teams think accepting the halo could give aero benefit to mercedes.

      You don’t decide by voting whether it is safer. You don’t decide facts by voting! The facts decide what is real and all we know having the halo is safer than not having it. Halo is the best solution as well.

      As far as actual evidence goes there is already tons of it. Not only is the halo the best solution (redbull’s canopy windscreen could not even survive the tests which the halo passed with flying colors) but it is needed quickly. There have been enough deadly head injuries and close calls. If there is not a solution the next driver to die in f1 will most certainly die of head injury.

      I’m all for hearing the driver’s opinion but the drivers should not be making the decision here. It is fia’s job to decide on the safety regulation. Fia has the data, has done the tests and takes the responsibility as well. The drivers don’t offer any kind of expert opinion in this. The people who designed the thing and tested it are the only people who can offer any kind of meaningful facts about it. To put it bluntly unless the drivers can report an issue with the halo then their opinions don’t matter any more.

      Next season the cornering speeds are about to increase substantially which means any contact will happen at higher speeds. At the same time the tires are heavier which means loose tires will be more deadly than every before. Do we really need to be in a situation where driver is hit to the head and dies or gets injured – while at the same time everybody knows we had a device that would have allowed the driver to walk away, possible unharmed?

      The fact is the halo won’t be winning popularity contests. Safety features never do. But they do save lives.

      1. Eventually we will get the Halo, or something similar.

        The question is, how many accidents before popular opinion demands it.

      2. Sure we can decide by vote. “should F1 remain an open cockpit formula, or begin moving towards closed cockpits? ”
        Because once you have ” halo is safer than no halo ” what’s to stop” fully enclosed is safer then halo”?

        1. +1. Then if you want complete safety, should the wheels remain open? Should street circuits be allowed? Should F1 continue altogether?

      3. I’m sure some drivers are pressured by their teams to vote against it because some of the teams think accepting the halo could give aero benefit to mercedes.

        How could you be sure about that? Pure conjecture.

        redbull’s canopy windscreen could not even survive the tests which the halo passed with flying colors

        Red Bull’s aeroscreen has hardly been tested, and a canopy has not been tested at all in the slightest.

        The people who designed the thing and tested it are the only people who can offer any kind of meaningful facts about it. To put it bluntly unless the drivers can report an issue with the halo then their opinions don’t matter any more.

        Ignoring that the drivers are the ones testing it? No one is more expertised than the drivers to decide on whether the Halo is a good solution. There have been concerns about visibility in corners with elevation changes.

        I’m not even totally against the Halo either, just saying that taking such one-eyed approach without listening to the competitors is crazy. Absolutely nothing in life is black and white, and certainly not safety.

        On one hand people are saying it can never be safe enough, but on the other hand people are complaining about endless run-off’s and quiet engines in the quest for efficiency because speeds have been limited due to safety. Safety over everything isn’t always the best approach.

        1. If we looked at safety only, well, not racing is the safest option…

        2. How could you be sure about that? Pure conjecture.

          It was mentioned in one news article but I can’t find it now. It is not my own invention…

          Red Bull’s aeroscreen has hardly been tested, and a canopy has not been tested at all in the slightest.

          Are you sure:
          “Although the Red Bull idea of the Aeroscreen stalled after it failed crash tests, the FIA is continuing to analyse whether or not there are alternative solutions in place.”

          Ignoring that the drivers are the ones testing it? No one is more expertised than the drivers to decide on whether the Halo is a good solution. There have been concerns about visibility in corners with elevation changes.

          The engineers are the ones to listen to about the safety aspects. The engineers designed the halo, tested it and proved it does its job. Drivers can only give feedback about how it effects vision. The engineers have also tested how it effects driver extraction from the car.

          I’m not even totally against the Halo either, just saying that taking such one-eyed approach without listening to the competitors is crazy.

          I never said to completely ignore the drivers. Don’t be so black and white with your interpretations.

          There have been concerns about visibility in corners with elevation changes.

          “Rosberg said he had not even noticed the ‘halo’ was on the car when going through Eau Rouge flat out.”
          “Toro Rosso’s Carlos Sainz also reported no visibility problems at Eau Rouge.”
          “Ricciardo – like Rosberg, a strong supporter of the plans for increased head protection – said it was “not too bad”, but added: “It’s definitely a work in progress.””
          “Hulkenberg, who has been more equivocal about the ‘halo’, said: “It was a weird feeling, and to have something there which limits you was obviously a new experience – “I have to say visibility wasn’t too bad, I don’t think that was an issue. It will take time to get used to.””

          That was spa. I’m not saying the halo is invisible but there is only one instance where some driver claimed that it could hinder driving into uphill corners. Doesn’t seem to be a problem in eau rouge though… Indycar doesn’t want the halo because it apparently effects vision on ovals. F1 doesn’t do ovals.

          Why are you bringing runoff areas and silent engines into this debate? These things have 0% to do with each other. Unless you are saying head injuries are acceptable reason for death and injuries because there is so much runoff?

          1. Found the bit abouit red bull objecting to the halo because they think it might give performance benefit to mercedes:
            “The halo arose from a design initially produced by Mercedes – and insiders say Red Bull are objecting to on the basis of a belief that it gives the world champions an aerodynamic advantage the others do not know about.”

            But from the same article we also learn that:
            “Similar concerns have been expressed by others about the aero-screen as a result of the fact that it was invented by Red Bull.”

            So it is just rumors but not something I made up.

      4. I’d have to agree, even though I don’t like the Halo. Let’s not forget that there were plenty of drivers who opposed the introduction of seat belts and the HANS system, yet today you’d be laughed at if you suggested racing without them.

    4. Drivers opinions should have absolutely no impact on decision to implement a safety device.

      1. ExcitedAbout17
        4th February 2017, 12:08

        Whose safety?

    5. as @socksolid mentions, this has nothing to do with evidence @hohum. Just with sloppy messages brought out as part of an argument.

  2. Zanardi is absolutely right. And I still think it’s disgraceful that there are rules dictating how a driver has to defend in a straight line. It wasn’t required until a few years ago, and shouldn’t be required now. Moments like Alonso pushing the car back in Hungary are what make F1 special, but there are so many rules that prohibit these sorts of things.

    Interestingly there was also an article on there questioning whether or not Vettel made a bad move from Red Bull to Ferrari. As it stands, the signs would indicate yes, and I think with his frustration he knows that may well be the case.

    With regard to VW, I do recall that the main reason they didn’t want to enter F1 was Ecclestone (at least before the emissions scandal), but now Ecclesgone, maybe with an attractive proposition made for new teams, VW could return, possibly under the Lamborghini or Bugatti brands. The possibilities excite me

    1. @strontium Rules relating to how drivers defend in a straight line & relating to defending in general were not needed in the past as there was a driving/racing etiquette, Non written rules that all the drivers understood & agreed on.

      The thing that changed was that as the cars & circuits got safer you started seeing drivers (Younger drivers especially) ignore much of that & really start pushing the boundaries beyond what many of the drivers felt was reasonably safe. And thats important to remember, Many of the regulations related to driving etiquette actually came from the drivers who felt that having some of the unpredictable behavior that was been seen was a serious safety risk.
      They wanted to know that if they were coming up behind someone & trying to pass them that they weren’t going to be shoved onto the grass, Squeezed towards the pit wall or suddenly have the car infront move unexpectedly & leave no room to react to it.

      That unpredictability wasn’t there in the past because the drivers knew how there fellow drivers would act. During that battle between Rene Arnox & Gilles Villeneuves at Dijon in 1979 they both trusted the other to not drive them off track on the straight or make a sudden move under braking because that was the racing etiquette of the time. Over time that racing etiquette started to vanish & it reached a point where the drivers via teh GPDA felt that things which in the past were common sense & just a part of the expected etiquette needed to be regulated.

      For example, Before Suzuka 1990 you would have never expected an F1 driver to intentionally take a title rival out & when nothing was done regarding that you ended up with Michael Schumacher doing the same at which point it a rule banning it had to be written into the regulations to discourage it been done again.
      It’s the same with putting people onto the grass & all that, If somebody does it & nothing is done it is seen as acceptable & it escalates to the point where something happens (See Nascar’s boys have at it from a few years ago).

      1. You should go back and watch Villeneuve vs Arnoux again. Banging wheels, shoved off track etc. The only difference between then and now is a marked increase in whining. These days it would be “Charlie” this, and “did you see that? pushed me off the track! clearly a penalty!” that. Don’t think for a moment that would fly these days and it has nothing to do with gentlemanly racing other than the fact that gentlemen don’t look to others to settle their disputes.

        1. Spot on

        2. @pat There was as a different spirit to that encounter though. The drivers were having a blast, and were certainly not trying to put each other into a wall even though one could look at it and think that was the case. If they had wanted to, either one of them had several opportunities to take the other right out, but they didn’t. They kept racing hard and as the story goes, immediately went into a video tent and rewatched it together having an absolute hoot over it. There was an unwritten respect and understanding there that neither of them was behaving maliciously and they both knew and understood that inherently. Had they been, they both wouldn’t have finished and the magic would not have happened that was to become an iconic event in the history of F1. A positive event that is.

      2. Don’t get me wrong, I think there does need to be a compromise on this. But the current rules are ridiculous. By all means, have a rule that says space must be left, and that you can’t chop a driver off – but the one move rule is an example of a step too far.

        It just provides an excuse for radio whining and getting through on a penalty basis.

        1. @strontium Actually I think the one move rule works well. It allows a driver to defend, but doesn’t allow him to weave back and forth which would be behaviour by which any driver could keep any other driver behind all the time. It gets into the territory of blocking or chopping as you say, and any fool can block or chop or ‘win’ by running someone off the track. The genius in racing is defending fairly and passing fairly without having to resort to cheap behaviour. Hence the one move rule. And as @gt-racer says, was brought in because too many drivers were going the cheap route.

          So, unfortunately drivers’ own behaviours in the past have warranted actual rules where unwritten rules were there before, and I think the one move rule is fine, as is the rule about the times when one must leave a car width, which is certainly not all the time, and that’s fine, and then we had the drivers, via Max’s moving under braking, being reminded that you don’t jam a driver up who has already committed under braking by leaping in front of him. Common sense. It’s not sporting nor respectful and is dangerous.

          Seems to me it is much to do with how much a driver can or should be able to leave the track boundaries that is causing the biggest ruckus wrt over-regulation. For me I’m not for having tennis-like laser eyes watching for any tiny little encroachment on a white line, but having all four wheels on the other side, including when that is from chicane cutting, has to carry a penalty, but ideally a natural one built into the track by slowing the cars such that the drivers don’t dare go off voluntarily.

      3. @gt-racer, I would point out that there are earlier examples of a driver attempting to take a title rival out of a title deciding race, even if they weren’t quite as high profile as what happened in the 1990 Japanese GP.

        Fittipaldi has claimed that, in the 1974 US Grand Prix, which was the title deciding race that year, Regazzoni attempted to make him crash out of that race by pushing him off the track whilst they were going down the back straight (Fittipaldi had half of his wheels off the track before Regazzoni seemed to lose his nerve and didn’t push him any further). He did then admit that, if he hadn’t been distracted by the celebrations of McLaren’s mechanics, given the team had also won the WCC, he was so angry with Regazzoni that he would have beaten him up.

    2. Do you want me to start posting videos of serious incidents that occurred on the straights?

      It’s not a matter of what would be nice, it’s a matter of acceptable risk. You have to take the risk into account.

      1. And then you take into account that they are the best world class racing drivers who know the risks and should race responsibly.

        I’m all for reducing the risk but there has to be a compromise between risk and close racing.

        1. Isn’t it also to do with the safety of the spectators though?

    3. Rules are over the top but the tv commentators add to it to create controversy. I watched Hungary 1990 or 91 and Berger and Senna both spun Mansell and Prost round and carried on. Murray Walker and James Hunt had nothing to say about it it was normal. Looking at it with a contemporary perspective I was thinking why are they not talking about penalties, why were the Ferrari drivers not shaking their fists. Problem seems everyone wants to get in on the act, stewerds have to be part of the show and commentators want to sensationalise every incident to create controversy where there should not be any.

    4. @strontium Well I think Zanardi is wrong. His move in the corkscrew is just a classic divebomb kamikaze move. Basic, unclassy, uncouth, unsophisticated. Not F1. Cutting corners or bumping others off track is cheating, plain and simple. For me that’s not racing, I really fail to see how others could call it that.

      With strict rules, strictly enforced, the move will have to made cleanly and sportingly. It encourages good racing.

  3. I remeber reading this article over a decade ago. I always like to re-read it whenever any racing series decide to make the rule book thicker.

    1. The first paragraph sums up the whole problem.

      “It seemed that science was capable, through aerodynamics, exotic alloys, insanely efficient computers, etc., of creating race cars so fiendishly complex that they would obviate the role of the driver and be so expensive that no one could afford to build and campaign them.” -Brock Yates

      1. Brock Yates was not an F1 fan it seems

  4. COTD, sorry I have to disagree, just for the same reasons I think Aston Martin should have dropped the “DB” model designation once David Brown was no longer involved, otherwise these letter/number combo’s become meaningless.

    1. Duncan Snowden
      4th February 2017, 11:15

      Point taken. But that’s slightly different in that, first of all, it isn’t Ron’s own initials we’re talking about, and also Aston did drop the “DB” in the early ’70s when David Brown sold it (the DBS became simply the Aston Martin V8, as far as I recall), then revived it in a misplaced fit of nostalgia back in the ’90s.

      But don’t get me wrong: I understand why they’re doing it. I just think it’s a shame that MP4 isn’t McLaren’s “thing” any more.

      1. It’s a new era. Ron Dennis did the same when he introduced the MP4 convention, so I don’t see why a new owner shouldn’t act in the same fashion.

        1. I should clarify that I don’t see it as a pity at all, in fact it might be a positive thing for McLaren. I see where you’re coming from though :)

  5. The interesting thing about the Zanardi pass on Herta at the corkscrew in 1996 is that while ultimately nothing was done there was actually a lot of people in the paddock that day including a lot of the drivers that felt he should have been handed a penalty as he completed the pass with all 4 wheels off the track having blatantly braked way too late to make the corner.

    Also interesting to look back at the fan reaction to that & the fan reaction to similar incidents today where drivers have completed moves with 4 wheels off track.

    1. Although I didn’t see that race I can imagine it and say that a driver would have to not only be brave but also foolhardy to intentionally go off track at racing speed there, terrific entertainment value but not a precedence I would like to encourage. I remember a US MotoGP race where a riderless bike made it to the bottom of the hill just in time to take out one of the leading bikes.

    2. Having just watched the last 3 laps of the 1996 Laguna Seca race it was more of a mistake than an intentional move. He went off track, and barely saved it, at a different corner just 2 laps earlier. And even ‘the pass’ could have easily ended in disaster for Zanardi. I think there’s a difference between intentionally going off to gain an advantage versus a mistake. Not to mention Zanardi’s pass was in gravel, not paved run off. I remember watching the pass live and thinking it was the greatest pass ever, it’s definitely my favourite CART/Champcar pass ever!

  6. Re. On this day 55 years ago, sadly that was a few years too early for me to have attended, but I did get to see, Jimmy Clark, Graham Hill, Jack Brabham, John Surtees, Jochen Rindt, Piers Courage, and other F1 legends race at Warwick Farm in the re-named Tasman series attended by the best F1 drivers/teams enjoying the Austalia/NewZealand summer weather during the northern hemisphere winter break. An idea for Liberty maybe, a main N.hemisphere series, supported by a shorter S.hemisphere series, possibly swapping their main team drivers race by race and using their 3rd./test or local-hero driver. Remember, people watch more TV in the winter than they do in the summer, and racing is better than testing.

  7. I’m so high, please, would somebody point me to the “round-up”, I want to read that Zanardi news!

    About that, in France it’s “Touché”, but some of us mexicans like to say: “Tómala perro en el hocico!”.

  8. Neil (@neilosjames)
    4th February 2017, 5:03

    That Zanardi move was awesome to watch and I’ll always love seeing people have a go like that, but… putting aside the fact that it was at the Corkscrew (which is what makes it special), he just braked far too late and only completed the pass because he drove across a chicane.

    I can’t think of a single half-decent reason why such a move should be allowed in any sort of track-based racing, from F1 all the way down to karting.

  9. The Zanardi pass would have been illegal in CART just a couple of years later, so its maybe not the best example against F1 to make, but his point about “freeing the artist” is right one.

    Seeing drivers differentiate their own personal driving and racing skills is when the sport is at its best – and both have taken quite a hit in recent years.

    If 2017 ends up being a bit stale on the race strategy side (which I think is very quite likely), and it does turn out to be damn hard to pass (which i think it will), all will not be lost if the drivers again find it difficult to excel at the limit, and maybe have to try some extraordinary overtaking maneuvers from time to time.

    And with promises of less steward involvement this year unless fault is clearly 100% one driver, then I happen to be very optimistic about 2017. The only thing that would ruin it for me would be Mercedes domination again.

    1. +1

      Give them more fuel so no one needs to lift and coast, and we. An see all in flat out raceing from start to chequered flag.

      Or better still, bring back refuelling and qualli tyres.

    2. Yeah, it’s all fine and good to hear people say things about those rules. But unless this interview is over a month old, it is kind of irrelevant because the Stewards/FIA already decided to be more open to tough close wheel fights.

  10. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
    4th February 2017, 8:14

    I really don’t understand the criticism of the rules in this regard? It can’t be a free for all it would be complete mayhem, unfair and damn right dangerous. When drivers are weaving around on a straight causing all kinds of accidents or cutting corners to make moves stick or kamikaze manoeuvres where other cars races are ruined. Even moving in a braking zone is extremely dangerous because when you’re braking at 100% you can’t steer so have to let off the brakes even 10% to get 10% steering but this is enough to ruin your corner like Lewis @ Suzuka. How can we possibly deliberate bringing in a safety device like the halo but then allow dangerous racing wheel to wheel at 200mph? I really don’t see the issue with keeping the racing fair, there may be a happy medium where some aspects are freed up a little but all the racing rules that are in place now are there for good reason, with track limits as farcical as they are with all the tarmac run offs there has to be rules stopping manoeuvres like Zanardi’s at the corkscrew, imagine that manoeuvre over tarmac run off, I also don’t want to see dirty driving.

    1. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
      4th February 2017, 10:32

      My rulebook for racing would be 4 bullet points:

      No weaving ( 1 move rule)

      Track limits have to be respected or a move is illegal (2 wheels on track)

      First corner incidents not reviewed

      No moving in braking zone

      I would add a general overarching statement that anything judged foul or just plain stupid/dangerous will be reviewed/punished by stewards/CW. Obviously this is subjective but only for extreme circumstances.

      This is probably over simplified but I’m just thinking out loud.

      1. I’d go even simpler:

        1. Respecting track limits (including only using the run-off if there is genuinely no option, not to avoid a disadvantage like Hamilton did in Mexico)

        2. No pushing or forcing another car off the track

        3. No excessive weaving, swipes, or other blatantly dangerous manoeuvres

        Any crashes or incidents that are clearly dangerous should be decided on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the stewards, who in turn should be the same every race to maintain consistency.

        And the stewards should review things because they feel it’s necessary, not because a driver is whinging about it

  11. COTD.

    Maybe if Ferrari had a boss that decided to put a cow instead of a horse on the badge, and they then changed it back to a horse after he left. As far as I know, Ferrari has always had a prancing horse.

    Ron Dennis started using ‘MP4’ when he joined McLaren in deference to Marlboro, but now neither he nor the cancer pedlars have anything to do with the team.

    Unfortunately it’s Ferrari that are now in deference :(

    1. Duncan Snowden
      4th February 2017, 11:28

      They started using MP4 in deference to the reverse-takeover by Project 4; yes, the “M” orginally stood for “Marlboro”, but it could have done so under the old “Mxx” designation too; it’s the “P4” part that was added. And technically, unless Project 4 has been re-established under some spin-off that I haven’t heard of, the team is still that merged entity, Ron or no Ron.

      But hey, as I keep saying, I know it’s not that important in the great scheme of things. Really. I just think it’s a bit sad to lose one of these little pieces of F1 trivia.

  12. Replying COTD.

    Comparing MP4 to Ferrari’s prancing horse is ridiculous.
    MP4 was something imposed by the new owner and had absolutely zero connection to McLaren and it’s history.

    Practice sessions were held on Friday in Monaco until 1975. Since 1976 we have current format.

    1. Duncan Snowden
      4th February 2017, 11:22

      Just to be clear, I meant removing the prancing horse shield from the side of the cars, not dropping it completely. It’s just one of those little things that makes a team distinctive. And Monaco has had practice on a Thursday for over 40 years. I’d say that counts as a long-standing tradition in this sport. Although, to be honest, it doesn’t really matter: the point is that, again, it helps makes it different and it would be a pity to change it now.

  13. Fudge Kobayashi (@)
    4th February 2017, 10:56

    Am I missing something here but since when have regulations NOT been implemented due to driver opinion? I expect that the FIA knows the Halo is an ugly piece of kit and is trying to justify now putting more testing into the aeroscreen or something similar. They’ve supposedly created these great looking cars for 2017 and are possibly considering aesthetic appeal more than they have in the past now.

  14. Everyone remembers me for the pass I made on the limit at the corkscrew at Laguna Seca in 1996. But today, such a move would be impossible in F1.

    I would hope that such a move would be impossible in F1, hard racing should not include exceeding track limits, Zanardi’s pass was over the limit and should not have been allowed to stand. F1 is not banger racing, it is the highest standard of racing in the world and the rules should reflect that.

    I honestly don’t understand this narrative that F1 is over-policed, yes there are questionable penalties at times but they are few and far between, to say that the stewards are clamping down on hard racing is a huge overreaction to the few penalties were do see. Sometimes I feel drivers just blame the rules and stewards to excuse their own poor behaviour on the track absolve themselves of their responsibilities to race fairly.

  15. Zanardi has a point, but the main reason the stewards have effected matters is due to the inconsistent way they hand out penalties for the same offence. Mexico last year was a classic example that was widely debated on this site for some time, because in this situation, the sport comes across negatively. It come across, rightly or
    wrongly, as fixed to suit certain people over others.
    This maybe in the better interests of some within F1 at that moment in time, but in the long run and in the sports long term interests its a negative aspect. Racing, however like all sports, thrives off controversy and
    rivalry between opponents. But Zanardi is right, the only stars in F1 should be the drivers and never the
    officials. We need to except that the drivers should be allowed to resolve matters on track, and should not
    have to rely on steward warnings to make their lives easier like some of them do.

  16. From the elite drivers of the various generations of Grand Prix racing to team owners and those who work tirelessly to produce F1 machines, to the nations and the people that call themselves fans, to the media that shows us and tells us about the greatest racing series ever, to all who have ever heard the sounds, who have witnessed the speed, who have chosen this driver or that driver and call them their personal heros, the time has come to stand and unit by demanding that Formula One give back to itself that aura that it once was….men and machines challenging nation against nation who build racing machines to compete in pursuit of victory while utilizing the highest forms of technology. Let these drivers do what they do best, race these machines, the fastest race cars ever made

  17. VW now rethinking F1? Hehe. Good times.

    In general, old must go and new must come in. Like MP4 name… I always found it a mouthfull, and resonably wrong.

    Most famous McLaren was called F1. Not MP4-F1… MP4 is fine for a testing vehicle… but once tests are over it should have a proper name..

    McL32, is far from M32, or McLaren 32. Again some kind of inbetween. And that is an unique McLaren issue. They are inbetween midfield and top teams, in name, budget, results.

    Atleast they are working on change, getting on with it.

Comments are closed.