Steiner open to 25 race calendar

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Haas Team Principal Guenther Steiner has voiced his openness to increasing the calendar to 25 races.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

This weekend’s Caption Competition was won by @b194, whose caption for this picture floated the boats of quite a few readers…

Carlos Sainz Jnr, Daniel Ricciardo, Max Verstappen, Daniil Kvyat, 2017

Newey denies the distraction of working on the America’s Cup has affected the design of this year’s car.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Titch, Jin and Jack_Hider!

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

  • Jacques Laffite scored the first win for Ligier, Matra and himself today in 1977 at Anderstorp.

Author information

Will Wood
Will has been a RaceFans contributor since 2012 during which time he has covered F1 test sessions, launch events and interviewed drivers. He mainly...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

66 comments on “Steiner open to 25 race calendar”

  1. Overdriving the car /J.Palmer


    1. Agreed @dam00r – the timesheets suggest otherwise. Surely this overdriving would show a spike in performance whether it be in practise of qualifying at least once this year? I mean this is F1, given the amount of laps completed surely he would of put this overdriving together for three consecutive sectors at some stage?

      Desperate comments from a desperate man. I give him two more races.

      1. @bamboo, I think you misunderstand the term “overdriving”, it is not faster, it’s what happens when a driver tries to improve his fastest time by a “couple of thou” ( as in qualifying ) but instead loses a tenth or 2 by bashing the curbs too hard, locking up, losing the back, etc. or crashes out, all the WDCs have been guilty of overdriving at some time.

        1. @hohum I’ve been racing for 26 years. I get what “overdriving” means, but thanks for the tutorial.

          My point is given all the laps completed this year, surely at least once it would reflect on the timesheets? Its in the name of going faster, so surely if that is the reason he’d be able to put it together for 4-5km out of the thousands hes done this year, correct?

          Notice how I said practise or qualifying, and not a race? Hes just looking for excuses, thats it.

          1. @bamboo, my bad, sorry, I agree entirely that if he was really a fast driver he should have been able to demonstrate it even in a poor car, and good drivers only overdrive when there is no other option and nothing to lose.

          2. @hohum, no worries mate. I’d like to think with the new owners, and motorsport as a whole seeming to operate in a more cohesive manner moving forwards that these conversations will be isolated to the lower formulae.

            I suppose you could look at Palmers performances as Kevin Magnuessens revenge. His departure pretty much meant they had to sign Palmer.

          3. He did do quite well in the quali for Bahrain, at least managing to get into Q3 (But still nearly a second off the pace of Hulkenburg).

            I get that he feels he is overdriving, but, still feel that in the race at least he should be capable of putting a decent lap time in. Sadly (for Britain), I fear next season there will only be 1 British F1 driver, if not later this season (it remains to be seen if Renault will bring Kubica in to replace him or another new driver).

  2. The Kalternborn headline was so predictable that I initially passed it by, but having read the Gurney- Weslake article I was musing on the era when 1 man could have in his head all the knowledge necessary to build a better engine, and that decided me to read what Monisha had to say. I do agree with the idea that the engineering should be more accessible to the fans (rose-tinted specs alert) as it was back in the pre-aero era, and considering that the parts of an engine that make the competitive difference are rarely visible on the outside, most of the trickery is inside. Even so as a schoolboy I pored over cut-away diagrams of F1 cars showing the workings of engines, suspensions etc. in the automotive magazines of that time and that understanding was what made me a fan of F1 before I could ever watch a race.

    1. Its almost like me need our own private chat room today @hohum

      I agree, the technological aspect of the cars are great, but I too hold the view that its gone too far. I used to draw F1 cars so much as a kid, but most kids would struggle these days as they are so damn complicated.

      I think we need to take a step back, and understand what draws people to the sport. While I support the pursuit of technical excellence, this at the end of the day is a sport. It is the pursuit and achievement of human excellence which naturally attracts people, and it is that human element that will dictates the emotions of the fans. Salesman talk, but people won’t remember what you did for them, or how you did it, but they will always remember how you made them feel.

      Take the Le Mans over the weekend. Kobayashi’s qualifying lap awesome onboard footage is such a rarity these days. It is such good viewing. Although already having a fast car, just by watching and hearing the car you can tell he is putting his balls on the line in the pursuit of the #1 spot. Its this sort of stuff that people are naturally attracted too as it well and truly exposes the human element, which is what sport should be all about. Part of the reason Connor McGregor & Muhammad Ali were so popular in their respective sports has nothing to do with the technical aspect of those sports, or fighting at all.

      I’m typically a motorsport fan, that being primary to supporting a certain driver or team, but I will admit that I support Fernando Alonso. It all went back to the watching him at the Hungarian Grand Prix in 2004 and thinking “hes trying harder than everyone else”, and he only finished 3rd that day.

      Its a tricky one, and this is why I welcome Liberty to F1. Part of the solution to F1 is not making it so much an arms race, but this isn’t helped when those who have “recommended” rule changes in the past hold all the arms (wind tunnels, R&D departments, bottomless budgets). Irrespective of what driver or team anyone follows, such an approach is holding the sport back as a whole.

      1. @bamboo, maybe we could call it the rose-tinted forum. But I’m tired of being called delusional every time I mention the positive aspects of F1 past.

        1. The funny thing is @hohum, is that people need hindsight to identify mistakes of the past. However, with F1 we are using hindsight to determine mistakes of the present.

          It has been nothing more than a revenue generating balance sheet item for a London hedge fund over recent years.

        2. @hohum @bamboo

          I’m all for nostalgia but I think you need to understand what problem you’re trying to solve when you talk in those terms. I’ve loved F1 since the 80s, though only really been serious about following and understanding it sinc the late 90s. I can see through those times that there is much to celebrate, but also that the sport was not without its issues. Perhaps the biggest difference is not the sport as such, but more the way that fans consume the sport and communicate about it. I used to buy Autosport magazine, and that was basically my primary source of information – sharing my own opinions was limited to talking to my own group of friends. I’d never have the opportunity to speak to people from across the world, much less be part of any sort of unifying community or consensus of ‘real fans’. Perhaps in those days, if I were, I might have been more aware of the shortcomings of the sport, and might not have felt quite so excited about tuning in to witness Schumacher winning the race and lapping most of the field week in week out, with a huge technical advantage.

          Anyway, on the subject of tech, I do agree that it has gone too far. I always think that F1 exists in an uneasy space in terms of promotion vs secrecy. It seems strange to me that a major manufacturer like Mercedes or Renault join the sport, ostensibly to ‘showcase’ their technology (with road-relevance apparently at the heart of that), and yet make absolutely no effort to talk in detail about the technology they’re producing.

          In this respect I think that the MGU-H systems are a massive white elephant. Hugely costly, delivering very low levels of additional performance, and being virtually invisible systems which have virtually no trickle-down application to road cars. It’s technical complexity for its own sake – nobody is showing it off, it does very little, and yet it accounts for a disproportionately high level of spend. Not to mention being one of the key differentiators between the best and the rest. Without the MGU-H, power units would be cheaper, competition would be more level, and really none of the manufacturers would suffer because the tech isn’t specifically road relevant and even if it was, they never promote it anyway.

          Personally I’d see the MGU-H phased out, and the technical regs synergised with LMP-1 regs, so that manufacturers could compete in both spaces using effectively the same tech. Spreading the development costs across two championships, with much bigger scope for customers generating even more profit. It’s a win-win.

          1. Since my first visit to an F1 race (Silverstone, 1953), the biggest change has been “global warming” and it’s various politico-environmental spin-offs. Technical complexity, costs, and failures of smaller teams have resulted from the adoption of hybrid additions. Honda have failed and no new engines or manufacturers are seriously on the horizon. Dominance of the big boys has increased. TV viewing has gone down. It’s an insidious, slow creep away from decades of top-end motor sport.
            A top Canadian paper has just published: ” an electric car race for which the city’s taxpayers will cough up $24-million in addition to guaranteeing a $10-million line of credit for the group organizing the event. All for the distinction of hosting a race no one’s heard of. That’s even more than the $18.7-million that Ottawa, Quebec and Montreal pay Formula One owners each year to host the Canadian Grand Prix.” (See )
            Maybe I’m old-fashioned and nostalgic, but while I agree with Kaltenborn that openness in evolving technology could be an asset, she fails to mention simplification which could reverse a number of nefarious trends.

          2. The web addrss of the article did not come through — please look in the Globe and Mail for “Electric-car subsidies take greenwashing to a new level “

          3. @mazdachris, @paul-a, A qualified agreement in that I recently read a report of a new model roadcar equipped with a 48V system and a version of “twin air” induction using an electrically driven turbocharger for low rpm boost. I expect a majority of city cars will become electric before we have finished our eulogies for the V12. As for now and then I’m not so nostalgic as to think we can go back to the 60’s cars to bring the fans back, but, I really would like to see what these cars could do if stripped of their wings but with whatever suspension/wheels/tyres the designers could develop. Using only underbody airflow and tyre-rubber for grip would no doubt be slower, but by how much ? and just as surely as the loss of lap time the on-track racing would improve. MotoGP rely entirely (no pun intended) on 2 tiny contact patches for fast lap times and great racing, in fact they just banned winglets, if they can do it surely the resources available to F1 can also do it.

  3. Yup and Gurney made it in the (although somewhat underpowered) prettiest F1 car ever

    1. Pretty yes, underpowered ? Winning at Spa would suggest that there was nothing wrong with the top-end.

  4. Chris (@tophercheese21)
    19th June 2017, 1:35

    Great job Will Stevens! You finally managed to crack a smi-… Oh, wait, never mind.

  5. 25 is not enough. We need more. We need 40, 50. The teams just don’t want to pay their take the financial cost with it all by themselves, that’s the honest truth. Be honest;
    NBA teams = 82 matches.
    Football = Average 40 Matches.
    Cycling’s World Tour = 40 races.
    Tennis = 67 World Tour average done is 25/30 per player over the last 3 seasons.
    And all those nonsensical reasons;
    Finances: FIA pays, everyone goes quiet.
    Fatigue: F1 isn’t a kindergarten. It should be cut-through business, you should be able to die if you slack-off. Really.
    Staff: Switch staff per 4 months
    Army of followers/personnel: So rotate shifts. Is that so hard? No.
    F2/GP3: Bring back A1 GP as support races and leave the F2/GP3 calender as it is.

    Really done with those nostalgic people that want to see F1 go back to the Schumi/Goodyear era like that will keep F1 heathy. Every competition of sport that is growing has acquired more matches. Motorsport only got Formula-E and the F4 series. You can’t attract new users if you race in 20 of the 52 weekends. People won’t pay, most aren’t interested in lower-tier series. They want to see the best, every weekend when they get home from work.

    1. I follow team sports with lengthy yearly schedules and honestly, a regular season game is totally forgettable nearly every time, whereas F1 Grand Prix has a completely different feel to it. It’s more exciting and anticipated, because you can’t have it every single week. I want F1 Grand Prix to resemble Grand Slam final rather than a tennis match from a regular ATP tournament.

      1. You beat me too it @huhhii

        In particular with cycling and tennis, I don’t the above comparisons are fair. While frequent in events, for the majority of us punters we only care (and viewing number reflect this) about the majors in tennis and the Giro & Tour De France for cycling. I don’t think the football & basketball comparisons are fair either as the travel distances are at best only a couple of hours flying each time. The biggest away leg for any football competition in the world is Wellington to Perth (or vice versa) in the A-League, which pales in comparison for the distance F1 teams travel.

        1. In addition to what both of you already mentioned @huhhii, @bamboo, another difference is the sheer amount of top notch engineers needed to keep the competition running at the level it is.
          Changing the staff every 4 months would most likely see teams (at least those in outside of the top 4 in money spending) run out of staff after the first of those cycles. That goes for something like F1, and off course for the prototypes in WEC too. Or something like the Dakar rallye.

          To me, about 20 races is fine, I like to get the time to enjoy them, and look forward to the next one. Having one every weekend, the whole year through, would probably mean I’d just read up on the weekend wrap on here to see the results and maybe watch a few races live (races where one can expect excitement, early season races and maybe something like Brazil towards the end of the year) and try to visit one each year or 2.

          I am just not prepared to give up my whole life to sitting in front of a screen every week in the middle of my sunday (for me watching either at night or early morning is far more socially acceptable), and watching other then live, it really loses the tension. And with more races, every single result just matters less for the championsip anyway.

    2. There is no way that everyone has enough money to do 40, 50 races. That’s delusional. Most of them barely have enough money for 20. There’s also no way they could find enough tracks to do that. And the fatigue of employees is real, teams would have to employ more people. F1 is already a cut-throat business too.

      And F1 doesn’t need more races to be competitive. If you have fewer races it makes every occasion bigger. If you had 40 or 50 races winning a GP becomes less important. Arguably a lot of those sports that you mentioned have too many events from a spectator point of view. In an 82 game NBA season or a 162 game MLB season an individual game is insignificant compared to the larger season. I agree with Chase Carey when he says that F1 needs to focus on building up the current events rather than expanding. Quality over quantity. This isn’t NASCAR.

      1. Many tracks have different configurations, so why not do two races over two weeks, one on the regular configuration and the other on a alternative configuration. So the first week you do the regular race from Friday through to Sunday, and then the following week change the track to the alternative configuration, and then from Friday through to Sunday run the second GP.
        This would mean the teams don’t have to travel between venues, but it would mean a track has to prepare for two GPs and have two F1 suitable sets of tracks instead of one.

        1. I mentioned a reverse track scenario not long ago. Shot down rather fast because, not a video game. Funny enough video games are more popular.

          1. The problem with running reverse tracks is that things like barriers, run-off, access roads & stuff are all designed for the track to be run in 1 direction.
            Suddenly running a track in the opposite direction would require a significant amount of work to those areas.

            Take Eau Rouge for example. Running it the current way ensures plenty of run off & room for several layers of tyre barrier in the places where drivers are likely to hit them if they go off. Run Spa in reverse & there’s suddenly hardly any runoff, A concrete wall on the exit (For the support pits) with no room for tyres or tecpro & armco barriers at angles that simply wouldn’t be safe.

          2. Yes, I saw your comment. Years ago I had a Playstation 1 and some of the tracks could be raced in reverse, my recollection is it felt a bit strange racing on a “new track” because it wasn’t a new track at all. The problem I see is it is still the same track with the same straights on it, more or less the same amount of braking, acceleration, top speeds, etc. Also some teams would want to change their pit box while others wouldn’t.
            By changing the configuration some of the straights would be the same, but some would be different, some of the corners would be the same while others would be different, etc.
            Electronic systems are an important part of F1 racing, so you can’t just change a track configuration without having the electronic systems ready to go as well.

    3. MotoGP have a similar number of races to F1 but have no problem filling Grandstands, the quality of the racing is what counts, not the number of races. Having said that I think a few more races could be inserted into the season by carefully reducing the distance between races and possibly reducing the promoters fee to allow lower ticket prices so fans would choose to go to both races they could drive to rather than only going to their chosen one race, the TV fees would remain the same per race. Additionally team personnel could be reduced ( only 6 crew in the pitlane ?) to cut team expenses or allow personnel rotation, it’s do-able, but not as we know it now.

      1. MotoGP have a similar number of races to F1 but have no problem filling Grandstands, the quality of the racing is what counts, not the number of races.

        Yeah, that and 50% cheaper tickets.

    4. I want to see them race on demand, when I want them too. I should be able to say “Be” and it is. The prospect of waiting two weeks for a race or indeed the prospect that a race isn’t happening right now is honestly disgusting.

      1. Fairy Godmothers are in short supply at the moment.

    5. @xiasitlo ”NBA teams = 82 matches” – The NBA games take place in one continent, unlike the F1 races, so apples to oranges comparison. The same applies to some of the other sports you typed as well.

    6. Football matches are not 3 day events.

    7. If F1 becomes Nascar.. it’s the end.

      Lots of boring races, week after week.

      1. Usually brought to you by some waist expanding product.

    8. Instead of having 25 matches, we need atleast 15 different teams. so each and every fan has a variety of team to support. 30 drivers will attract lot of fan base.

      1. Each and ever year why Olympics or football world cup is not inavurated. It is not about number of world cups or number of Olympics. Its all about number of quality teams participating. A simple mantra for sports or a game to attract audience is simple. Add number of participants. Sponsors and audience will follow you.

        1. It’s good to see a bit of common sense although I am not sure if the main comment by Jules is a joke!

          I agree with you though. F1 used to have 13 or 14 teams and 26/28 drivers. This would make things better especially if the teams were more competitive. This is what is required rather than a big increase in the number of races.

          Maybe 22-24 might be possible if the dates were planned better but anything above this is pie in the sky.

    9. Sundar Srinivas Harish
      19th June 2017, 12:16

      I’m not sure if that was sarcasm or…

      1. GtisBetter (@)
        19th June 2017, 13:54

        Pretty sure it is ;)

    10. Hans (@hanswesterbeek)
      19th June 2017, 14:18

      I have always been more interested in the championship(s) than in the individual races. Adding more races to the calendar means that each individual race becomes less and less meaningful to me – and I would be more and more happy to miss one every now and then. For example, all the races up to know have been ok, but rather meaningless because the seasons is so long that anything can still happen. Whether HAM wins and VET comes second, or the other way around, does not mean a lot for the championship(s) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      1. Well, this took off.. You nostalgic fanatics are ruining the sport with that decadent way of their clinging to might and old tradition and wanting to race is the same mostly boring predictable races every freaking year.

        Few replies; The sports were to point out people will still come to more races.
        You can’t compare Nascar with F1. Use common sense. Driving almost the same oval every week.
        Top engineer is utter BS; there are far more engineers in one city in China that could work in F1, that surpass the amount of all engineers that already have been in F1.
        If we finally cap costs we can let staff run in cycles.

        And please stop with that ridiculous anecdotal evidence ”I woudn’t watch”. You would watch, it’s F1 after all. That nonsense comment ”Olympics and World cups are special because 4 years” Nonsense. When the UEFA implements the Nations League, and every big National match gets played every year at the same date like UCL you will still watch. Don’t lie. And you guys here are really 10% of fanatics. Just look at national auto-sport forums. Especially all those Dutch fans. You can’t turn F1 a profit by yourself.
        Oh and F1 is not cut-throat business. Have you seen Lance Stroll sawing through Montreal? 20 years ago he would’ve been dead. Alonso in Melbourne few years ago? Same.

        This is the same decandent nonsense like DRS. You guys really think enough children would watch a live race from the Goodyear era of F1 without DRS and think ”Yea. Nah I’ve go open Steam/my PS4 instead”? Preposterous.

        1. ”and don’t think”

        2. petebaldwin (@)
          19th June 2017, 15:16

          Not sure.. As a kid, I was hooked on F1 and couldn’t get enough of it. As soon as the race was over (which I watched wearing my dad’s old motorcycle helmet), I’d rush outside and cycle around the garden commentating on my laps in Murray Walker’s voice.

          These days whilst watching races, I often think “Yea. Nah I’ve got to open Steam/my PS4 instead!”

  6. For me Kaltenborn’s complaints suggest that Sauber don’t know that they are doing technically so they want the sport dumbed down. This makes sense when you look at their on track performance.

    A side note that is kind of related: I get frustrated with people that want to go back to old tech because they can understand it more or because it was ‘cool’. You have to remember that the sport is built on people like Dan Gurney being innovative and discovering new ways of making racing cars go faster. A big reason why the old tech that a lot of people like was cool when it was around was because it was pushing the limit of what was technically possible at that time. Fortunately F1’s current engine and aero formula is allowing teams to do some really cool engineering that is innovative. Hopefully future changes to the formula are just as forward thinking from and engineering standpoint.

    1. Especially contracts, very technical things. Anything more than a handshake spooks her.

    2. Sundar Srinivas Harish
      19th June 2017, 12:24

      I think Sauber still has a pretty good chassis. If you look at all qualifying times, they are about 0.3-0.5 seconds behind other (sorta) midfield teams such as Haas. I’d definitely attribute the majority of the difference to the old Ferrari engine that they’re running.

    3. For me Kaltenborn’s complaints suggest that Sauber don’t know that they are doing technically so they want the sport dumbed down. This makes sense when you look at their on track performance.</blockquote

      Ugh… so you make up a poor assumption and then you agree with yourself by applying a logical fallacy… Are you serious man?! Come on now.

  7. great caption winner ; )

  8. The problem that I see with F1 being so technical is that it becomes prohibitively expensive which leads to less teams competing and only a very few of those actually being able to realistically win. The WEC LMP1 field is another example of this occurring. Surely there has to be a reasonable compromise between ‘spec’ series like IndyCar (which certainly delivers in terms of close completion and absorbing viewing ) and the exceptionally highly advanced but elitist thing that F1 is.
    Then, of course, there’s Honda ; endless funds but no success. 😢

    1. That’s it… Monisha talked to Honda… that’s the reason why she said it’s all too technical that even people within the sport do not understand it fully…

  9. 25 races is perfect and easily attainable.

    1. Replace the second week of preseason testing with a race.

    2. Start and end the year with 3 races in 3 weeks. F1 should build momentum early and have something to look toward to at the end.

    3. Shorten the summer break by 1 week.

    4. Have a rotating double header.

    1. You do realize that people working in F1 are humans not robots and they need some break from all that hectic travelling and logistical nightmares.

      1. Illusive, Let’s not act like the mechanics are climbing Mt. Everest. They are gear heads who love racing. They probably would prefer a race instead of preseason testing test. I also think you could eliminate some Friday practices altogether and have an extended Sat session to ease the burden.

        1. Trust me hardly anyone in F1 want more races, None of the mechanics or engineer’s that I’ve spoken to are reveling in the prospect & I know more than a few that very openly say they would walk away if it’s regularly 21+.

          It’s easy to forget that many of the mechanics & engineer’s are the 1st to arrive & the last to leave every venue. There the one’s that build up the garages, There the one’s that have to tear everything down as well as building/dismantling the cars not just at the circuit but also again at the factory checking everything is ready for the next event.

          They don’t just turn up on Friday, Work on the cars for a few hours over the weekend & then leave to be at home as many seem to think they do.

          F1 breaks more families & wears down more people than anything else i’ve ever been around. Yes those in it for the most part love it & are passionate about it, But it’s not the ‘dream’ or ‘easy life’ that many on the outside seem to think it is.
          I was only working on the broadcast side for FOM for 10 years but even that was by far the hardest thing i’ve ever done in terms of the travel alone let alone everything else that was required (Setup, The actual day to day work etc….).

      2. Why can’t they have a team rotation? The only constants that are really needed are the drivers.

        1. @selbbin They would have to hire more people which naturally would increase cost’s.

          Additionally many teams have a core group of mechanics/engineer’s that they want to work every race. Having a rotation of 2 or more groups makes staying on top of things as far as car development & things like setup a bit more difficult.

          You also have drivers who like to stick with the same primary engineering team through a season, Lead engineer especially as they build a very close relationship. They want to be able to go to whoever & immediately be on the same page, Helps speed up problem solving & setup work when everyone is on the same page having worked closely with one another on a consistent basis. Swapping out every few races causes unnecessary disruption in the team/drivers eye’s.

    2. I like the idea of starting and ending the season with with 2/3 back to back races to build the momentum/tension, however in general F1 is a sport that needs less, not more.

      I find I already suffer from fatigue in terms of how many races there are to watch, and each individual event is becoming less and less memorable.

      On top of that, the smaller gap between races and the lack of testing means that most teams / engine manufacturers can’t make any significant gains from one week to the next and the rhetoric gets carried over from one race to the next, reducing the build up and suspense.

      If we really had to have more F1, I’d be open to special non championship events that allowed teams to test for a full day or two instead of the usual practice, and culminated in a race where new formats and rules were tried; no mandatory tyres, sprint races, unlimited DRS (I know) etc…

    3. @Jay I wouldn’t say it’s ”easily attainable”. I doubt the smaller teams especially could double the staff just like that.

  10. I’m a huge fan of the race weekend. I spend all winter waiting for Melbourne to come around and after the last race in Abu Dhabi I’m counting the days until the calendar starts again.

    You’d think more races would be perfect for fans, but I’m actually quite happy with how many there are. 19 always made it feel like a race weekend was a special occasion. I’d watch the practice sessions, the build ups to both qualifying and races, and the after race coverage as well.

    But last year when they increased it to 21 it already felt like it diluted the occasion. I started skipping some practice sessions, some of the build up coverage, and pretty much always switched off after the podium interviews. If they end up going up to 25 races a year then my next step is likely going to be… I can scarcely believe I’m going to utter this. I’ll skip races!

    I just don’t have the time for half of my weekends to be dominated by F1 like that and it’s going to be a sad day when I’m forced to find the F1Casuals website to join to discuss the sport in the future.

    1. @philipgb Agreed. Was actually in the same boat last year, Especially towards the end of the season when I just wanted it to be over.

      Although I didn’t skip any on-track sessions, I did feel less engaged in them later on & got up more than once to watch an FP1/FP3 Less than enthusiastically. Did skip a few Pre/post race shows though which is something i’ve never done before.

    2. That’s right. The more races there are, the less special each race is, and the less a win matters. More does not, and will not = better.

  11. I’m absolutely not in favour of any more races, but one way to do it would be to axe FP1 and FP2, and extend FP3 a little. This would probably also make the races a bit more unpredictable, but in a good way (i.e. FP3 becomes crucial).

  12. Renault are pouring cold water on the Kubica-comback story.

Comments are closed.