In the round-up: Max Verstappen believes F1’s new cars won’t necessarily be quicker at every circuit.
Links
Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more from hundreds of sites across the web:
Verstappen: Wrong to expect every 2017 race will be quicker than 2016 (ESPN)
"It just depends track to track. I think, for example, in Barcelona it could be more (than five seconds) because it's more about downforce. Maybe in Monza we will be a bit slower than last year - it depends track to track."
F1 takes too long to change - Todt (Racer)
"The governance of Formula 1 in a way is a big security for the teams, but it's a 12-year process – it shouldn't be that heavy to change something."
Notebook from Paris (Joe Blogs F1)
"The new management of the Formula One group has a very different approach and there have even been suggestions that they might be willing to share the billing with IndyCars."
Palmer wants car checked before Chinese GP (Autosport)
"We just need to have a good look and make sure everything is working as it should."
Analysing 2017's massive rises in G-Force (F1)
"In the latter of these bends, the forces acting on Hamilton peak at 6.5G - 0.2G more than the most extreme rollercoaster on the planet delivers."
Got a tip for a link to feature in the next F1 Fanatic round-up? Send it in here:
Social media
Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:
100 days to go until the Austrian Grand Prix. Are you going? Join the discussion: #F1 https://t.co/mBuNwztoFz pic.twitter.com/OUfXN0Djmj
— F1 Fanatic (@f1fanatic_co_uk) March 31, 2017
- Find more official F1 accounts to follow in the F1 Twitter Directory
Comment of the day
Has only supplying engines to one team restricted the rate at which Honda can develop their power unit – and would taking on another team improve things?
There’s a reason that Sauber have an out of date Ferrari engine, and the most likely one is that they’ll change engine suppliers.
However, I don’t think that necessarily means that the McLaren-Honda deal is ripped up, rather that the silly exclusivity built into it by Ron Denis would be no more. All that exclusivity has led to is a slower than possible development cycle and a chronically underperforming McLaren.
@gregkingston
Happy birthday!
No F1 Fanatic birthdays today
If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.
MattDS (@mattds)
1st April 2017, 0:33
@COTD: actually the most likely reason, in my opinion, for Sauber to run an out of date Ferrari engine is cost.
We know their financial situation is not good. Using year old engines would undoubtedly lower the price tag.
socksolid (@socksolid)
1st April 2017, 0:47
Sauber is not in good health but they should now have the option to get better because the guaranteed tenth position in the manufacturer’s championship will always guarantee them some money. It allows them to plan ahead. When they had to compete with manor for that 10th place they could not plan ahead because it was effectively a dice roll who gets p10 and who gets p11. Luckily manor is no more so we hopefully see a much stronger sauber in the next couple of years.
It also makes very little sense to switch from reliable but old ferrari engines to potentially slower and definitely more unreliable hondas. Mclaren can afford to not finish a lot of races if they finish high in those other races. But for sauber it is the exact opposite. They literally can not afford to go racing with that mentality. Their only chance to earn money and points in f1 is to be reliable. It is the most important thing. The more races sauber can finish the bigger the chance that in some of those races they get lucky and finish inside top10. Running a ferrari engine also means there is a chance ferrari may one day need a seat for one of their young talents. For sauber that can potentially mean getting a good driver and discounted engine.
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
1st April 2017, 2:14
@mattds I think it’s Pascal’s fault. The difference money wise is around 10m, in f1 terms is that really worth becoming a minardi. I think Sauber signed Pascal in order to get Mercedes engines from 2018 onwards, hopefully.
BasCB (@bascb)
3rd April 2017, 7:56
I think @mattds is right, the primary reason for Sauber to run the 2016 Ferrari is cost. First of all, Ferrari will ask less money for it. But also, it meant that they had an easier job just developing the internals they already had and knew instead of having to wait for new specs from Ferrari (that would probably be quite late in the last season) and then rework the packaging based on that.
And we saw last year how lacking reliability with the newest spec engines played into the hand of Haas a bit in the early season. I would think that Sauber would be glad if they could do the same to secure some points early
Philip (@philipgb)
1st April 2017, 0:34
RE: COTD
I think the reason they went with a 2016 engine is because it’s cheaper and if they’re dead last they may as well save some money.
They get to see where they are in relation to the field then weigh up the benefits of paying more for the newer engine. If it will actually net them a better constructors championship position then I suspect they’ll take it, but only if it will pay off for them. Unless the Honda engine comes with significant incentive I don’t see them sacrificing a good chance at beating McLaren for a dead certain chance of finishing last.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
1st April 2017, 0:52
I’ve read many reasons behind the decision to use the 2016 Ferrari engine. One of them was that with their limited resources they couldn’t afford to wait for Ferrari to finish the design of the new 2017 engine, so that they’d have an easier time time adapting to the new regulations around the engine spec they knew inside out.
I also believe, as the COTD mentions, that the rate of development from Honda is seriously, SERIOUSLY held back by McLaren’s decision to be Honda’s only client. I understand their wishes for exclusivity, but supplying a small team could increase their chances. I bet Mercedes and Ferrari gathered a lot of information helping Manor out.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
1st April 2017, 1:06
It’d also mean some millions back for Honda, after such a big investment…
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
1st April 2017, 2:18
@fer-no65 One thing is certain McLaren paid a big price for being Honda’s #1 team. Honestly McLaren didn’t want RB to poach Honda if and when the project became good, or maybe even risk losing Honda’s trust if they couldn’t beat the other Honda teams.
Gary
1st April 2017, 12:34
What was McLaren’s better option at the time the deal was signed?
Gabriel (@rethla)
1st April 2017, 16:20
@Gary Not blocking other teams using the Honda engine to speed up its developement?
SpaFrancorchamps (@spafrancorchamps)
2nd April 2017, 9:36
Indeed. All McLaren needed was factory status. If the engine was developed 1 on 1 with their car and lubricants, they’d have an advantage over every customer team. While the development of the engine would have speeded up quite a bit.
Neil (@neilosjames)
1st April 2017, 1:03
Providing the Honda is a little cheaper than the Ferrari, Sauber-Honda makes plenty of sense for all parties. The difference between 9th and 10th in terms of prize money is very little ($3m a few years ago), so it’s not like a bad engine is going to hit Sauber in the pocket. They’ll have the opportunity to re-establish a link with a manufacturer as the ‘top second team’ after losing that spot with Ferrari, and McLaren will finally (finally!!) have a junior team of sorts to place their young drivers into.
And of course, having four cars breaking down/going slowly rather than the usual two will provide Honda with a lot more data, so they win as well.
OOliver
1st April 2017, 1:13
The advantages of using a year old engine are
1. Massive savings in costs
2. Reliability
3. No need to redesign a gearbox
4. They were probably going to be last anyway, inspite of having the current engine.
The cost differential between the current engines and those from last year probably doesn’t justify incurring, as the best they could ever hope to finish was 9th. The prize money from 10th to 9th position isnt that massive.
beneboy (@beneboy)
1st April 2017, 1:24
I’d guess that TV rights contracts and various other legal/contractual issues would have to be overcome for it to happen, but I’d like to see F1 having a few GP weekends with other race series running as support races or double headers.
Getting to compare F1 with IndyCars, and other top level race series, running at the same circuit over the same weekend would be interesting.
It’d never happen, but getting to watch F1 qualifying on Saturday lunchtime, then having an 8 or 12 hour WEC race overnight, followed by an F1 GP in the afternoon would be a cool event to attend.
Piotr Koteryl (@stigrennfahrer)
1st April 2017, 12:20
That would be amazing! I’ve been told of a time when the BTCC used to support F1 – that would be pretty cool if it came back for the British GP…
Maciek (@maciek)
1st April 2017, 4:32
Man, I would love to see an Indy/F1 weekend at the same circuit, how cool would that be, and it would be major publicity in the US for F1.
MG421982 (@)
1st April 2017, 8:06
+1
miki
1st April 2017, 5:09
Sauber using the Ferrari 2016 PU because they dont have money to buy it and make adjustments to their chassis so that they can use that PU to good effect. Simple as that.
Unless Honda gives Sauber their PU for absolute Zero price i dont see why they want that PU in this moment.
Kringle
1st April 2017, 7:55
Erm, all this talk of cost but isn’t it the case that Ferrari never sell the current years engines, only the previous year?
MG421982 (@)
1st April 2017, 8:12
HAAS it’s using the 2017 engine. It’s just a matter of money, I hardly believe Ferrari are afraid that Sauber or HAAS is going to beat them. Plus, Ferrari don’t sell their engine to the (possible) front runners on purpose. They reject from the start teams like RBR, McLaren or Williams.
@F1-liners (@f1-liners)
1st April 2017, 9:55
In previous seasons they sold Sauber ‘current year’s engines’ :p
PS – cost saving is only part of the reason, as Sauber still has to spend the money next year (if moving to Ferrari ’17 or ’18 spec).
The only cost saving you make is if in ’16 you know you might jump ship for season ’18. You don’t want to do a full rebuild two years in a row.
Friederike (@rike)
1st April 2017, 8:11
Question: did anyone else here that kimi announced his retirement? Is that true?
Joao (@johnmilk)
1st April 2017, 8:29
April 1?
Friederike (@rike)
1st April 2017, 9:26
Oh jeez, is it already? :’D
@F1-liners (@f1-liners)
1st April 2017, 9:58
I saw that as well, along with Alonso to be back at Renault, Hamilton to quit, and Verstappen to drive for Belgium.
Surely a lot happening today ;)
anon
1st April 2017, 12:31
@f1-liners, even though it is a joke article, I actually wouldn’t be surprised if Alonso did end up getting fed up enough with McLaren-Honda to want to move back to Renault again.
On the flip side, have there been any examples of stories breaking in the motorsport press on April 1st that were initially believed to be jokes before they turned out to be true?
Kevin Amery (@k-l-waster)
1st April 2017, 18:29
Also saw one about Mclaren splitting from Honda with immediate effect, being replaced by Skoda.
https://realsport101.com/news/sports/racing/f1/mclaren-confirms-split-from-honda
And one saying Giovinazzi will replace Wehrlein for the rest of the year.
http://racingclothesline.com/post/159061565335/20170401
Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust)
1st April 2017, 8:55
I find Palmer’s comments most unusual. Why wouldn’t a car that has had a crash (regardless of fault) be checked? I can’t see how this sort of comment wouldn’t rile the people that look after the car. Somewhere in the process of fixing the bent chassis precise measurements will be taken to make sure it meets the designers expectations, for example this may need several trips to the wheel alignment person before it gets their seal of approval. All this because someone crashed into the tyres, and then that someone has the cheek to tell the media he want’s the car to be up to spec. Of course it is going to be within spec! If, by chance it wasn’t, how would he know? “Bagging” the team doesn’t make the car go faster, all it would do is make the mechanics more determined to have their allocated breaks on time. The mechanics would have found it a lot easier to give him a car chassis that is within spec if he hadn’t crashed it in the first place, or if he had to then he should have done a better job crashing so there was less damage to the car.
Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
1st April 2017, 10:36
I really don’t like his attitude, particularly under pressure, the team clearly did the best they could with the car he crashed. We saw the toys out of the pram last year when under pressure as well. In summary I just think he’s a spoilt, silver spoon, arrogant 🔔 🔚
Gabriel (@rethla)
1st April 2017, 16:22
Its all a repeat of Nasr last year that wanted a new chassis because “something” was wrong with it…
Johnny H.
1st April 2017, 8:57
I just read Hamilton is quiting F1 and Alonso is taking his seat at Mercedes (grandprix247)…. :)))))))
Joao (@johnmilk)
1st April 2017, 9:21
I read that Alonso signed for Renault.
I was expecting more drama, quite disappointed so far witb April’s fools
Dizzy
1st April 2017, 13:57
I read that today Lada has signed as a new team in F1 for 2018! :)
F1Supremo
1st April 2017, 17:14
Honda just announced that Ron Dennis would replace Yusuke Hasegawa at F1 program!!!!
Jere (@jerejj)
1st April 2017, 19:04
On one-lap pace, the current cars for sure will beat last year’s cars on each circuit even Monza. For example, the 2011 Red Bull RB7 managed to beat the fastest efforts of the 2014 and ’15 Mercedes cars there despite the straight-line speed deficit and the 2013 pole lap there was also faster than the 2014 equivalent, so on that basis this year’s pole lap should be faster than last year’s as well despite the straight-line speed deficit. The real question is how big the gap will be between the laps, and that’s what’s going to vary from circuit to circuit depending on the layout.
NewVerstappenFan (@jureo)
2nd April 2017, 6:58
All this talk of engine suppliers. Is Ferrari #1 now? Just look how well Haas were doing in quali. ..
Joe
2nd April 2017, 14:26
Hmm, i think they need to be slower – that 6g cornering comment during c4 coverage of the last race tweaked my interest, a bit of research turned up this :-
“From a medical standpoint, at 4G’s, you will start to lose color vision, which is why it is called “graying out”; 4.5 G’s and you may lose vision all together. Higher G’s and your lungs start to collapse, your esophagus stretches, your stomach drops and blood pools significantly in your legs. It’s hard for the human body to take, although my pilot seemed to be enjoying it and joking the whole time, sometimes at my expense.” — CNN Report: Dr. G and the G Forces
Paul A (@paul-a)
3rd April 2017, 0:25
Re: the g-force video (please note, small “g”.) Does anyone have info on what exactly the sensors are measuring (vectors.) It’s impossible to be sure, but the “brake” (the only one that gets to 5+g) could be interpreted as taking a potential vertical vector into the measurement; they are instantaneous, and while I cannot, from the quality of the video, beak it down to “frame-by-frame”, I have a sneaking suspicion that the vector is not pure longitudinal and horizontal — in other words they are adding “road bumps” onto “braking.” (For those F1 fans who are not math-minded, a vector is a “speed plus direction” notion, a g-force is an acceleration – in the negative, a deceleration – or speed change over time, but requires a direction or dimension, think 3-D.)
As to any “CNN” report about lungs collapsing, that’s pure bovine manure for the numbers mentioned. In previous professional activities, I flew more or less daily at +8g and -5g and was regularly clinically tested to +10 -7 without getting even close to the dire outcomes mentioned (and before anyone questions, I did wear a g-suit – primeval in my days – but these are only of use for *sustained*, not instantaneous, accelerations. A g-suit only affects your head and vision by keeping the blood out of your feet, legs and lower body after several seconds — we were tested to thirty seconds; “redding” out after sustained negative-g, i.e. too much blood in your head is more serious, but *not* an F1 factor.) Please remember that F1 sensors also measure deceleration in accidents. I seem to remember that Alonso’s accident a year ago measured 30 or more g, instantaneous, and without a cracked rib he was declared fit.
Joe
4th April 2017, 17:41
That’s not matching with what i’m reading, what do you make of this article @Paul A
– http://www.motorsport-safety.org/research-education/item/high-acceleration-and-human-body
Also in a recent article R. Grosjean quote 8g
– https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/monster-f1-cars-hitting-peaks-of-8g-in-melbourne-886185/
anyway that was my concern, are they “graying out” at all is the question?