Chase Carey, Bahrain International Circuit, 2017

Carey’s priority is to make F1 “a simpler sport”

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Formula One CEO Chase Carey says he wants to make Formula One simpler and the engine regulations are a key target for this.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Ross Brawn has suggested using a non-championship race to test alterations to F1’s format. Corey explains how NASCAR did just that last weekend to try a rule F1 already has:

NASCAR ran their annual All-Star event this past weekend. It’s a non-points event reserved for winners in 2017 and 2016. The format is different than a typical race and changes yearly. NASCAR likes to try out different rules and see how they work out.

This year they took a page from Formula One and tried option tyres. Every team got one set of green-banded Goodyear tyres to use at their disposal. While it made the cars quicker on the get go, they weren’t that much faster then the primaries and after about ten laps the speed difference was gone. The segments were 20 laps maximum and so I don’t think there was any time for a drop-off in time to take affect. It was an interesting concept but I think they’ll need to go back to the drawing board with it.

On a lighter note, due to a loophole it was fun seeing Clint Bowyer try to race on two used green options and two new yellow primary.
Corey (@Dragon86)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Emmet!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

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

  • 63 comments on “Carey’s priority is to make F1 “a simpler sport””

    1. Josh (@canadianjosh)
      23rd May 2017, 0:19

      Pirelli want softer drop off tyres and Carey wants cheaper engines…..this sport is almost too confusing.

      1. It is not about drop off tires. The hard compound for this season is simply too hard which makes it unusable. Making the compounds softer does not mean the compounds will be 2016 levels of softness. It is a small change and something the drivers and teams want.

      2. Pirelli have always made alterations to their compounds with each year.
        They have also amassed real-world data of the current regulations in action. So it makes sense to use that data to make adjustments.

        And there’s also the tailoring of the gap between compounds, to make sure each compound is a viable option for teams to use.

      3. The ultrasofts barely drop off this year, so even if they make the hards/mediums softer than they are this year, it won’t drop off at all.

        They will only be changing medium and hard, by the sounds of it.

      4. This year’s tires still “drop off” and degrade over time. The major differences is that in previous years, the tires would had strong thermal degradation after a relatively short time. Once that happened, the tires were done, even if you backed off and they cooled down, the surface had permanently changed. This year that has changed: the tires still degrade physically but it’s in a much more gradual manner. If you push them hard and they heat up and lose grip, you can back off a bit and when the cool down, the grip will come back. But it looks like this years Hard tires are just too hard for almost every track.

        Two things to remember: 1) Pirelli has always done exactly what F1 has asked them to do, so don’t blame them for the types of tires we’ve seen since they became the sole supplier. 2) Pirelli has been severely hampered by the VERY limited testing that F1 allows. It seems very self defeating of F1 to limit tire testing but hopefully Liberty will be more sensible about it.

    2. Josh (@canadianjosh)
      23rd May 2017, 0:34

      Comment of the day, NASCAR has tweaked their Allstar race since I was a college kid in 2010. This year was no different with tires that did nothing. I don’t know if Carey realizes the changes don’t work and what they had before (tradition) did work. Brawn is just as dumb if he wants a fake race which won’t do anything for us. NASCAR has taken a hammer and pounded a sport what wasn’t originally broken and smashed it into smaller pieces every year and we ve seen crowds drop dramatically, star drivers retire, Dale Jr the latest, and fans become disgusted like me. I had no clue for example last weekend that the race wasn’t on Sunday, it was on Saturday night. F1 is traditional and so beautiful and shouldn’t be bothered with fake double points races or a stupid test/ trial/let’s see what happens race. Tradition is important.

      1. Brawn dumb? He’s a genius. Can’t you see that they’re doing this for the complaining fans that don’t know how good F1 already is.

        Because if they try out something in a non-championship race and it doesn’t work, they can say: “Hey, we tried what you wanted, it doesn’t work, so leave it up to us what is best!”

        1. Just because some of us enjoy what we have dosnt mean theyre going to leave it how it is. The sports market has seen massive growth in the last decade, F1 want to compete with other sports and hobbies for the $$ ultimately.

          It could still be improved with better TV coverage IMO. I look at some of the old videos even Trulli, Alono and Schumacher days battling out and the TV often made those cars look faster.
          The hybrid cars sound quite good in tesing but that doesnt come across on TV well either.

          Look at all the empty seats in grandstands, very few races are sell-outs and F1 has an aging audience apparantly.

          1. I agree that the TV camera coverage of F1 races could be improved. The current approach with the way that camera follows the cars often doesn’t seem to convey the speed of the cars. Also, I think it’s critical for F1 to make it VERY easy to visually identify the teams and the drivers for those that are new to watching F1. The new requirement for numbers and 3 letter driver IDs on the shark fins are a small step but there’s a LOT of room for improvement. There are still many shots where I’m using the helmet to to identify the driver, which something that can hardly be expected from a new F1 viewer.

            Even more important for the U.S. market: F1 MUST dump NBC Sports coverage. There are so many commercials interruptions that the NBC broadcasts lose almost 1/3 of the race! The don’t even send the commentators to the races, except for the pit lane reporter Diffey, who is pretty good. But the quality of the commentating from the studio is mediocre. The whole broadcast is so second rate compared to Sky that it’s no wonder that it doesn’t inspire new U.S. fans. F1 should just contract for the very good Sky feed for the U.S.

            And yes, I’m in the U.S. and ahem, I do know how to find the other feeds here ;-).

        2. Why would teams risk their equipment and drivers in a race that has no value to them? First question any business will ask is “What’s in it for me?” and unless there is a large pot of money for all participants I don’t see this happening.

          I also recall that F2 (formerly GP2) was supposed to be used as a test bench for F1. That doesn’t seem to be the case but that concept can be revived.

      2. Yeah Brawn is like.. super dumb.

        OT: I think it makes perfect sense to try something different in a non-championship weekend.
        The traditional format works, but it’s worth trying something else isn’t it?

    3. This is brilliant strategy! When your potential market gets smaller because trends move on, you dumb down and dilute your product for the masses, right? You should definitely alienate your hardcore fans and focus on making an easy to consume, disposable product, that’s the way!

      1. Totally agree! Leave F1 just the way it is. There is nothing wrong with it all. Not even a little bit.

        1. knoxploration
          23rd May 2017, 2:49

          Nonsense. There’s plenty wrong with it, but the things that are wrong don’t need to be fixed by dumbing them down. DRS is wrong, for example. So is having engines that are homologated and required to last for many races without replacement, and with minimal testing allowed anyway, yet some engines are far more powerful than others. Either the engines need to be brought to parity, or anything which prevents development of those engines need to be scrapped. And arguably, we need to reduce reliance on downforce, too, as it has gotten to the point where it is badly impeding the ability to even attempt to overtake.

          Basically, what F1 needs is a return to sporting fairness. The rules should be clear and applied consistently, *all* of the time, and no driver should be favored over any other by the rules at any time.

          1. Your sarcasm radar is off.

            I would advice you against against going clubbing soon.

            1. knoxploration
              24th May 2017, 0:27

              Ah, you’re right. I think I was in a bad mood when I answered previously, so saw it as annoyingly overoptimistic rather than sarcastic. ;)

              My bad, carry on folks.

          2. @knoxploration The restrictions on engine development (The old token system) have already been lifted for this year.

            1. There are restrictions on engine development which still exist even after the token system was scrapped. The requirement that teams run the season on four engines is a major impediment on engine development. So is the ban on track testing.

            2. knoxploration
              24th May 2017, 0:26

              What Fireblade said took the words out of my mouth.

      2. @James Exactly. It was always the fear with American owners, and here it comes.
        To even think that the most advanced sport in the world mustn’t be advanced or difficult so as not to put off fans, and at the same time saying the whole thing is about the fans, just means they want to attract a new type of fans. I guess the Nascar fans?

    4. His_majesty
      23rd May 2017, 4:20

      Happy birthday to Rubens. Great racer, but even better is, he’s a great person. Alaska loves you buddy!

    5. RIP Nicky Hayden. May God give strength to your friends and family in this time.

      1. Rest in Peace Hayden. Just came to know the news. So sad it ended this way, but that’s life. On the other hand we were lucky enough to have him among us for as long as he stayed. A great Champion!

    6. “We want technology and engineering to be part of the sport, but it shouldn’t be a defining part of the sport. You should get an edge, but first and foremost we still want the drivers to be the stars.”

      Carey on the future of F1.

      1. @mog – Carey’s not aiming that thought at us though.
        Normal people only care about drivers, not the technology. It’s too hard to understand, insufficiently heroic, not cuddly.
        We “fans” (F1-Fanatics) care deeply about the tech, the business, the engineering, the politics, up-and-coming prospects, sometimes even the drivers(!)… we’re a much harder group to please, but we are not the majority.
        It will be interesting to see if Formula-E’s roboracer series gains any traction with the public. Are we moving into an era where Joe Public can embrace a robot?

    7. From reading the interview with Carey I get the feeling that the main reason to reduce the costs of owning/running a team is for Liberty to be able to cut down on what the teams are paid in revenues. This of course will help Liberty to increase their earnings on their investment without having to increase the costs for teams, fans or circuit owners. All the talk about making the sport simpler and cheaper, that’s not the goal, it’s just the means to increase revenues for Liberty. It is however a more clever way to earn more money than Ecclestone’s ways. Or am I being too cynical?

      1. I think you are too cynical, @metallion.

        In the various interviews Carey did since he’s been in charge of the bakery, he has shown that he focusses as much on growing the pie as the size of the pieces.
        He wants to make the pie available to more consumers by slowly adjusting the flavour (maybe a bit too much for some hard core pie fans).
        He also makes some small pieces available for free so new consumers can get a flavour of the pie and maybe buy the whole thing next time. He surely wants to move beyond the exclusive expensive shops the previous baker was focussing on.
        He also hired some assistant bakers who can use their specialities to make the pie better and more appetising to the generic consumer. One focusses on the base, to make sure it is not too hard and ruins the whole pie, or too soft and becomes soggy even before the whole pie is eaten. His assistant also focusses on the baking process to make sure pies can be produced quickly one after the other without having to rely on artificial techniques like allowing the second pie to use self-rising flour.
        And now he smartly wants to review the ingredients which go into the pie and change some ingredients for cheaper alternatives; especially those which no consumer can really distinguish when eating the pie. The current core ingredient is very expensive but does not have enough bite according to some fans, and the head-baker wants to see if we can replace it with another ingredient which delivers a bigger flavour impact. I for one like the subtle flavour of the current ingredient, but can see why new consumers what to be more overwhelmed.

        If all that makes the pie bigger, without artificial flavours and colours, available at a decent price in many shops, and if the pieces are shared more evenly, then I’m all in f(l)avour ;)

        1. and I’m hungry now, thanks!

        2. Comment of the day right there.
          Love the analogy

        3. @f1-liners I’d want to comment back on that brilliant comment but I can’t stop thinking about pie!

      2. @metallion, personally, I think that you are on the money (quite literally), because there is something of a dissonance between the sweet words that Carey is coming out with to seduce the fans and the actions of Liberty Media. Indeed, what many posters seem to have missed is that Carey makes a fairly strong hint towards the end of the article about adjusting the revenues which are given to the teams, with the implication that they would be cutting both costs and TV rights payments…

        When you look at the wider picture, some of the measure Liberty are talking about are debatable – when it has come to circuit hosting fees, for example, Liberty Media are not talking about reducing hosting fees or introducing measures which might make tickets cheaper. Instead, they want the fees to remain as high as they were under Bernie, if not higher (Bernie did renegotiate some contracts to reduce fees, including Hockenheim and Spa), and instead focus on maximising revenues by introducing even more events to the race weekend.

        It reminds me a little of how the fan base reacted at first when Mosely was replaced by Todt – he was fairly popular to begin with simply because he was someone other than Mosely, yet you’ll not hear many speak kindly of Todt now. We will have to see how the future plays out as Liberty start to introduce more sizeable changes – it may be that we speak positively of them, but it is equally possible that we could, in the longer term, find some of their changes are rather less to our tastes.

        1. Personally I have no issues with what Carey is saying. It is his bat and his ball now. I think he is speaking in generalities right now, and much has yet to be decided amongst the teams. I like that everything is being carefully considered, and for now I think Carey himself doesn’t know exactly what F1 will look like in a few years, as the teams must be brought together in this too. That’s the whole point. They will take their time to formulate a plan, particularly a new engine format that is not so technical that it is overwhelming everything else. I’m not going to try to predict what their motives and intentions are, like they are something cynical, because it is too early days. Suffice it to say they are talking the right game and I certainly do not think it is all about maximizing short term profits at all costs to the integrity of the sport. I think they have a much better, sustainable business model in mind.

        2. You have to remember he didn’t buy F1 because he wanted to make the sport better. He bought F1 because he wants to make a load of money from it.

          The difference between him and Bernie however is that he wants to improve the sport so that it brings in more money – both for him and for the teams. Bernie didn’t want to bring in more money for the teams and didn’t care if the sport was any better – he just wanted to make himself (including CVC who he was acting on behalf of) more money.

          If “Option A” made Bernie £50k, doubled the sport’s fan base, improved the entertainment value of the sport and was universally backed by fans, pundits, teams and drivers whilst “Option B” made Bernie £51k, destroyed the fan base, ruined the sport and was hated by all, Bernie would pick “Option B.”

      3. NO that’s something that Bernie would have done. Liberty is treating F1 as along term investment and EVERYONE knows that they current level of spending and the disparity in revenue sharing among is NOT sustainable. If it doesn’t change significantly, F1 will fade out in 7-8 years and even more quickly if there’s a global financial crisis similar to 2008.

        F1 has always had very strong, leading high technical element but over the last 20 years, it’s over shadowed the drivers skill too far too much. That’s where F1 can simplify to a great degree while still being high tech, cut costs and bring more focus to the human driver element.

    8. Now, I’m going to try something here, and put something a little left field out there but as opposed to being dismissive, please assist in evolving this as after a lot of thought I think it could have merit.

      Ron Dennis (remember him) is right when he says the key to winning a WCC (and likely WDC) is being a factory team. Thats why McLaren went down the path with Honda as they knew they would not win the WCC with a Mercedes engine while a Mercedes factory team was participating. With the exception of Brawn GP 2009, this has been the case for years, with Mercedes and Red Bull/Renault recently, McLaren, Renault and Ferrari in the 00’s and Williams also in the fray in the 90s with Renault.

      In light of this, I think the issue isn’t necessarily how much the big teams spend to win, but more the issue is how much the smaller teams spend to lose. There is a strong (but not absolute) correlation between budget and WCC standings, so for these smaller teams the writing is on the wall before the season starts, hence some ridiculous pay drivers we have seen over recent years.

      Instead of simply being met with “it won’t work”, I’d be interested to hear peoples views and feedback on how it could work. Thinking outside of the square here, this is what I propose:

      – A car is made up for 5 components. Engine, aero, energy recovery, suspension & chassis). Brakes are already produced by external entities.
      – For the factory teams, its a simple matter of them producing everything as per usual and racing. Nothing changes for them.
      – All teams must make any component they produce available to other teams, with a quota providing up to X amount of teams.
      – No team however can have more than 3 components from the same team, unless they are the team producing it.

      I think this works in multiple ways:

      – This will throw up surprises on a race to race basis, but over the duration of a season, a factory team will more than likely take the WCC given synergies between all aspects of the car are paramount to win the WCC. Part of the bigger teams reluctance at present to change is them thinking change means forgoing their advantage. Over the duration of a 20+ race season, although the path will not be as linear as present, the bigger teams will likely come out on top.
      – The bigger teams will obviously be selling these components to the other teams (at a capped cost). There is going to be greater scope for a change in revenue distribution among teams if an additional revenue stream is provided to these bigger teams, who take a large percentage of the takings at present.
      – If this is done with all components capped price wise, it provides a budget cap to those that need it, while not being an impediment to the R&D of the bigger teams. The bigger teams just have to make these components available to their competitors, which will result in extra revenue for them.
      – It makes the sport more attractive to new entrants, without the need to invest in a ridiculous amount of infrastructure simply to get within 107% of the front runners.
      – If there is a capped/established price to produce a semi competitive car, I see the need for pay drivers will become less and less.
      – Given the ability for multiple components from multiple teams being able to operate cohesively, there is scope for smaller entities which specialise in one component to enter the sport, whether that be specialists in aerodynamics or a firm which specializes in energy recovery for example.

      Aerodynamics – yes, people will say its not a matter of simply bolting on the aerodynamics, but this is part of the issue. We talk about improving the show, yet the biggest impediment to it is something we cannot even see – aerodynamics. This won’t affect the bigger teams, as they will be producing everything in house already, but for this to work parameters would need to be set so that regardless of car, another teams wings, diffuser and floor can be bolted on.

      If Brawn and Careys comments about displaying the cars to the fans before the race weekend is going to happen, the teams will struggle with the counter argument that the above proposal gives their secrets away.

      This won’t really have any impact on the bigger teams with all the infrastructure already other than they have to make their components available to other teams, and a new revenue stream is provided to them. However, for the non factory teams a budget cap has been established, with them able to be competitive at a price far less than what it costs them at present, and the sport becomes a lot more attractive for any new entrants.

      Just biffing it out there. Would love to get peoples feedback on it. We all know it is not achievable at present given how the cars operate, but that is part of the issue we face currently.

      1. Actually, like Haas is doing, a team can build it’s car almost entirely with third parties or buying from another team. Haas buys from Ferrari the P.U, suspensions? pedal boxes, steering racks, fuel cells and maybe more things. And the chassi is made by Dallara.

        Maybe it’s more a cultural problem, the way teams aproach the competition, than in the rules itself.

        The other side of this is the problem that those teams will NEVER be championship winners, it’s almost impossible for them to became better than the team that they are costumers.

        1. The other side of this is the problem that those teams will NEVER be championship winners, it’s almost impossible for them to became better than the team that they are costumers.

          Agreed, but thats no different to what we have a present. My proposal gives that outcome in a cheaper manner for the current non-factory teams, and in a quantifiable manner for those potential entrants outside of the sport.

          Its more, given the components come from the top teams it should narrow the performance gap. While I agree it will not change the championship standings (and that was not its purpose) it will make the races more interesting and less predictable. Races that are more interesting and less predictable will attract newer and/or returning viewers.

        2. I haven’t been all the way through your proposal, but one of things that jumps out at me is this
          “All teams must make any component they produce available to other teams, with a quota providing up to X amount of teams.”
          I can’t imagine Ferrari selling an engine to Mercedes or vice versa without a lot of problems.

          1. Read all the way through the proposal, especially the importance of being a factory team.

      2. Way to make the sport simpler.

        1. Hows is it not simpler?

          – The car is broken down into 5 components
          – If you produce the components you must make them available to others (with a limit)
          – If you don’t produce the components you can’t get more than 3 components from the same source/team.

          Thats it.

          1. Spec Series? (argumentum ad absurdum)

            Interesting ideas @bamboo, but it would be drastically moving away from a constructors championship.

            1. Appreciate the feedback @f1-liners. I think there would be too many variables for it to be a spec series, but can see your point.

              I don’t see it changing the pecking order too much when observing a full season. I think either way the constructors championship is going to be won by a team aligned with a manufacturer. Its more what does it look like for the remainder of the grid.

              I’ve got no problem with how much teams spend to win, but more how much the others spend to lose.

      3. As someone mentioned above, 3 of the 5 ‘components’ (Engine, aero, energy recovery, suspension & chassis) that you mention above are already available ‘off the shelf’. The two that aren’t, aero and chassis, are the core of what determines whether a team is a constructor or customer. F1 is a prototype constructors championship if we lose that then it may as well become a spec series which no-one wants.

        1. I think you are spot on. F1 states that the Chassis must be built by a team and cannot be bought in (IE – you cant ask another team on the grid to build your chassis). The independant teams would like a system that reduces their costs they pay out to make running a team easier but if it becomes too much plug and play then as you rightly say it becomes a spec series which every other race series is. F1 is different it needs to retain that difference. The question is how to improve it as a formula without negating or turning it away from its core principles.

      4. @bamboo – In a sport with interoperability, compatibility and component re-use firmly at the bottom of its list I don’t see how some of the five elements can be anything other than bespoke, given prevailing attitudes – F1 has been firmly against the principles you outlined for some time.
        It would take a lot of work and some big changes in attitude to get your five-element system to work. Teams like Haas would snap it up, of course – they have pushed the sport further along the shared component path than any other team in recent years.
        As I see it, bespoke == custom advantage. That’s the drug of choice for most F1 teams.

    9. Obviously the decimal point is slightly out in that Tweet, only just noticed! Should be 16.5.

      1. That was about the same pressure Gilles Villenueves left rear had Zandvoort 79!

      2. Then we have to race at ca. 15km altitude to inflate the tyres!
        Have your race there in the depressurised cargo bay when flying between events ;)

    10. Formula suffers from the same malaise of major sports: memory. Most people, including tv pundits, often sell the current status of the sport as something new screaming “dominance is ruining the sport” even though it’s far from novelty. Overreacting individuals running the show tend to abide to such screams and exploit avenues leading to cutting the dominance of a certain team and more often than not they fail. I understand their intent, but I sure can’t get around their expectations of actually fixing what they identify as life threatening problem.

      F1 was built on two horse races, 3 at best, and having 4 teams consistently fighting for wins is as rare thing and an underdog landing a championship, let’s say Brawn, is as rare as Leicester winning EPL. The sport is just fine, not perfect but your tweaks (Carey) will not achieve your goals, unless you make it a spec series.

      1. Sundar Srinivas Harish
        23rd May 2017, 11:05

        I disagree. Just take a look at WEC and WRC. The rules are much more nonrestrictive and/or simple, and this has led to teams to develop a sense of individuality when coming up with their cars. If Porsche does something, Audi (RIP) and Toyota do not try to copy it, they do something else to make their cars better, and the vehicles are generally much closer together in terms of performance. Sure, there may be a lack of participation in recent years, but I would place the blame on the monopoly F1 has in the world of 4-wheeler motorsports.

        1. Sundar Srinivas Harish, in the case of the WEC, you neglect the fact that the teams are being artificially brought closer together by the ACO consistently manipulating the regulations to artificially close them up under the “Balance of Performance” clause.

          That only works because the ACO effectively bans in season development – the teams are only allowed to have two fixed aero configurations (a low downforce and a high downforce configuration) which have to be fixed prior to the start of the season; as for the engines, the design of those units are frozen at the start of the season. If you have a problem built into your car at the start of the season, then the regulations effectively prevent you from doing anything to deal with it – hence the major problems Nissan had with their LMP1 programme – and it can sometimes lead to teams just going through the motions: you have the case of Toyota in 2015 where they actively admitted that, as soon as their performance disadvantage was locked in by the regulations, they didn’t really try to compete that year because they knew there was no point in trying.

      2. “.. screaming “dominance is ruining the sport” even though it’s far from novelty”

        Dominance of the sort we have seen over the last three seasons is not just a novelty, it’s unique in F1 history. No team has ever dominated as Mercedes have. And that’s largely due to the rules, so changing the rules seems at least worth considering.

    11. I think ditching DRS is a really way to make F1 a bit more simple again. Trying to explain that to people is quite tricky and time consuming.

      1. @ecwdanselby Ditching DRS should only happen if and when they make the cars easier to follow each other, which would only require a shift from primarily wing-dominant downforce more towards underbody/floor and or diffuser-dominated DF. DRS has to stay at least as long as the ‘following problem’ isn’t fixed.

        1. I certainly wouldn’t go as far as ‘has to stay’. The racing has been good this year, and to be honest, I don’t think it’d be a huge deal worse without it.

          If they’re hell-bent on keeping it for now, (and I’ve said this all along) then why don’t we use them on shorter straights, rather than the big start/finish or back straights?! Just keep people loosely together…

    12. They should have 3 tires only and bring them to all races. Ultrasoft, soft, medium could be renamed soft, medium, hard. It would be simple and effective.

    13. “We came out of a meeting a few weeks ago on the engines to sort of say we think we’d like the engine to be simpler, cheaper, louder,”

      Well to be fair to Ecclestone, that’s what he’s been saying since the new engines came out.

    14. And another quick note:

      I’ve always said my two favourite interests had more in common than at first glance… For the first time, a higher up in F1 has called it ‘sports entertainment’!!!

      I can only think of wrestling and F1 (motorsport..?) as claiming to be ‘sports entertainment’.

    15. The German article was very interesting. Basically, Mercedes adapts to higher-pressured tires better than the others. That’s why they seem much stronger on fridays

    16. All I want in F1 is cheaper, more productive, performing and loud engines.

    17. Would people be interested in Formula One if it were turned into a modern-day Formula 5000? They could mandate a stock-block, heavily modified, fuel-injected V8 plus a six speed manual gearbox, steel disc brakes, heavily restricted aerodynamics, maximum number of employees, etc. this would bring the costs down five-fold or more. Would we still be interested?

    18. Of course, you couldn’t have an “All-Star race” in F1 featuring “just the winners of the past year’s races” as there’d only be three or four starters.

    Comments are closed.