Sainz unlikely to replace Palmer before 2018

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Carlos Sainz Jnr is not expected to take over Jolyon Palmer’s seat at Renault before the end of the year.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Could Bottas ‘do a Raikkonen’?

I remember back in 2007 when a Finn was third in the standings and surprised everyone with a championship victory in the last race.

Actually, I think that Bottas might have a mathematically better chance now than Raikkonen did then. Stranger things have happened.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Gwenouille and Evered7!

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

  • Juan Pablo Montoya put his Williams on pole for the Italian GP today in 2002 at what was a record-breaking speed at the time

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.

74 comments on “Sainz unlikely to replace Palmer before 2018”

  1. +1 COTD

    I still remember saying to my mates with 3 races to go in 07, I think Kimi is going to put one over the grid!

    1. Valid comment, good cotd, but Mercedes wouldn’t allow it.

      1. Now I seem to remember 2010, a certain German young gun in third place won the last round, against his teammate and Alonso also. Webber was ahead in the standings before the weekend began. :) stranger things… (thanks for cotd Keith!) Go Bottas!

    2. Good luck with that.

      Bottas is a good driver in a very good car and that means he will win races but to land WDC Bottas needs more that math. Both Vettel and Hamilton are better drivers than him and drive great cars too, only a major combination of strange events will prevent us from seeing a either Vettel or Hamilton as champion.

      1. @jcost, Well, Rosberg needed more than math too and he got his WDC in the end.

    3. Hope Ric gets a shot in a title capable car sooner than later. Unlike max he isnt getting any younger.

      1. Unlike max he isnt getting any younger.

        ‘The Curious Case of Max Verstappen’

      2. Emil Krejberg (@)
        14th September 2017, 10:29

        Maxs getting younger?

      3. No wonder FIA had to introduce all these silly super license point systems, what with all these young drivers getting even younger!

    4. Biggest difference is, Kimi was against the two McLaren drivers, while Bottas would be against a Ferrari driver, but most importantly, his team-mate, which at the time has a better chance of winning the championship.

    5. Entertaining COTD but somehow I don’t see Lewis or Bottas sacrificing points through internal bickering and dirty tactics which is what lost the McLaren drivers the 07 crown.

  2. That helmet design looks so epic. So 80’s. Back when helmet designs had actual identity and were memorable.

  3. Sorry to burst your Bubble Mercedes AMG, but Nicola Tesla invented a more efficent motor than you 129 years ago, electric alternate current motors can reach 97% efficency in electromagnetic field usage, with no waste gases, minimal moving parts, and robust reliability; and if electricity comes from renewable sources, then the efficency is ridiculously higer than your hybrid engine, 50% efficency in the energy Petrol can give when burned is impressive for an ICE but not in comparison to any electric motor, your AMG motor still converts hydrocarbons and oxigen to carbon dioxide and other gases, also is insanely complex, in engineering the best solution is the simpliest one.

    1. Having your fuel squirt out of the ground with incredible energy density and very portable nature of storage, is more simple than battery storage, and much much cheaper than hydrogen. I love electric but internal combustion and liquid fuel storage is a very simple design and still has a place till electricity can be stored easier, hopefully only years away…

    2. Sorry to burst your bubble Juan, and I’m a fan of electric cars, but any internal combustion car on sale now will get you from London (or any N. European town) to Monte Carlo (or any S. European town) faster than any electric car on sale now, unbeatable as they may be for daily urban use.

      1. Maybe you are right, -(a Tesla Model S P100d with 100KWh battery, and an intermediate supercharge station, can beat any VW Golf from London to Montecarlo)- but still im talking about efficency, and any electric car would be a lot more efficient than any car with and I.C.E. in that trip.

        1. Yes Juan, and a car powered by a micro nuclear fusion reactor would be even more efficient in terms of resource consumption. But such an engine does not yet exist to power such a car. Just like no such battery technology exists to make electric cars practical and economic.

          1. if you account for the ground up costs then nuclear is not particularly efficient for small things like that. if you use it to create electrical power for thousands of battery powered cars then that’s another thing!

      2. @hohum
        That might be the case, but it’s a really weak case, after 100+ years of evolution. Imagine where the electric car would be today had oil mafia hadn’t stifle the electric motor century ago.

        That’s a perspective you need to consider!

    3. Interestingly he was the first to patent the 3 phase electric motor, but Galileo Ferraris had came up with the idea many months prior. He even talked about it years before Tesla Patented the concept. Here was therefore more likely to be one of the main originators behind the concept. Tesla just cleverly bagged the copyright.

      People tend to believe the lone inventor myth. When in reality, as today, science is often about collaboration and shared (and copied) research/ideas. Scientific inventions are not normally borne out of a vacuum that a single person works in.

      1. Alternating current was in research as early as Michael Faraday time, Many tried to develope alternate current engines not only Ferraris, but Tesla is the one with the Patent and the practical demonstration, so he gets the credit.

    4. @juanmelendezr1 Let’s just forget the massive environmental footprint of manufacturing lithium-ion batteries.

      1. Right, because the mining of the rare earths and lithium is only poisoning the third-world, not NYC, San Jose, or London.

    5. Ahm, right. Ok @juanmelendezr1, sure an electrical engine is efficient in bringing power to the axle, I am certainly not going to debate that. And I also know that in more an more countries it’s overall environmental footprint when compared with gasoline (and Diesel) engines is already better @peartree – partially dependant on the engery mix that CREATES the electricity in the first place, the higher “investment” is offset by less losses in what gets consumed over a lifetime of app. 200.000 km.

      But when we talk about the efficiency of the engine as such, you cannot ignore that the electric motor needs a facility to first create that electricity and then get it to the car. We have to compare the whole of it.

      If I remember right, a modern gas-turbine facility (if ran with rest warmth useage for heating etc) can get up to 55-60% efficiency. The most efficient coal plants get to up to 45%, many operating in the world lag at about 30-35%. We can take in account say 20% of energy made without burning fossile fuels and still stay in the real world, but that still only means we get about 0,6 MWatt out of burning 1 MW of energetic potential. (Let’s ignore the mining and transport for now, as those also occur for fuel burned by the combustion engine)

      And once we get to the transport, losses of between 33% – 60% are quite common (depending on technology and distance) for electricity networks. Having your own solar panels would change that a bit, but then you’d need to take into account storage for that energy, which would easily give losses of up to 30% too. Then there are losses in the process of loading that energy into the battery etc.

      Overall, when comparing the process from burning of the fossile fuel until the power arrives to the axle, I am pretty sure there is not too much between the two.

      And then we get to the argument @hohum makes, where in many circumstances it is wholly unrealistic to be dependant on a loading pause every say 300 km, and even that is currently realistic only with a 100.000 K Tesla, and certainly not when it goes up to 300kmh!
      Over the weekend i read about a test made with a Tesla to get to southern france and given the loading stops needed (and having to take a route that goes through Paris to be able to get to quick loading stations) it took them quite a few hours more with the Tesla than it would have taken with a combustion engined car.

      1. First, I like to thank all contributors to this interesting discussion. Many facts and a polite discussion.

        @bascb, I’m not sure that you are correct with your transport losses estimate.

        transport, losses of between 33% – 60% are quite common

        In the US the losses are estimated to be around 4.7% (2015)

    6. Sorry to burst your bubble @juanmelendezr1, but the electrical energy that you charge your Tesla with, doesn’t come from nowhere. It comes from a power plant, and most power plants’ energy efficiency is as low as 30%.
      Your Tesla’s efficiency is only 97% of that 30% !!!

      1. Oh, just noticed @bascb already pointed that out. I mainly forgot the losses in the distribution of electrical energy, so the efficiency of an electrical is even lower.

        1. Theres a couple of crossed wires and varying topics of conversation going on here if i’m not mistaken?

          I believe what @juanmelendezr1 was originally referring to was a theoretical system of vehicular power enabled by a nationwide electromagnetic field powered by towers which was shot to bits and buried by the oil industry of the time before it could go anywhere (one tower was actually constructed and was able to successfully transmit electricity some distance away, look it up; Wardenclyffe Tower, New York)

          @hohum then takes the topic to the modern Tesla Motor Company which actually has no affiliation to the concepts of Nicola Tesla other than using his name as a brand.

          But I don’t see what these are in response to anyway as I don’t see anything in the roundup where Mercedes are claiming to have invented the most efficient engine of all time?

          1. Ahh I see, the 50% efficiency story. Got it

          2. one source of fuel with very low emission output that no one has mentioned us ethanol. all plant matter can be used to create ethanol and every country can grow its own needs easily. indeed Henry ford’s model t was designed initially to also run on ethanol, in particular ethanol made from hemp which has almost zero carbon emission – however the ruling oligarchy demonized hemp as it was a threat to their profits from plastics, oil, paper and cotton industries. we have been led down the wrong path for over a century by a small cabal of elites who only have their own interests in play.

          3. See – I knew this would bring out the Tesla Conspiracy theorists!!! @offdutyrockstar Although to be fair, you did qualify your remark with “theoretical”.

            Tesla was a clever scientist, but an even more brilliant marketing man. Many of the concepts and ideas he pioneered (or rather marketed) never caught on because they were impracticable, uneconomical or just did not work. There was far less independent scrutiny in those days for a start. A lot of his ideas were based upon the work of other scientists who had no interest in making money from their work.

            Read the facts, not the myths perpetuated by the internet and nonsense echo chambers.

          4. @offdutyrockstar, Wrong! I intentionally did not mention that brand (wish I owned one), that was @juanmelendezr1 himself when he placed a theoretical charging station at the halfway point rather than the actual (current, no pun intended) locations as pointed out by @bascb, and further neglected the fact that the roads of France all have speed-limits that any VW Golf can easily maintain.

      2. If you use only coal powerplant you would be right but most powerplants in northern europe are wind.., Hydro (lots), nuculair (france all of them) coal (but those are closing at an high rate) transport does lose some not that much. So if you want to keep 50% efficient fine but that number is rising.

        Gasoline is very inefficent because it must be made. Of 1 barrel crude oil (100l) you get about 9 l gasoline
        as you get :
        Liquified petroleum gas (LPG)
        Gasoline (also known as petrol)
        Kerosene and related jet aircraft fuels
        Diesel fuel
        Fuel oils
        Lubricating oils
        Paraffin wax
        Asphalt and tar
        Petroleum coke

        So that Mercedess engine is 50% efficient of about 10%, and we forget the distributie system losses.

    7. exactly… and this perspective gets ignored usually… certainly if you look at efficiency in terms of the volume of people money and resources that go into making that engine, its laughably inefficient…

      so formula one really isnt that high tech, its complex tech yes, its expensive and intensive, but its low tech paradigm at the end of its development possibility so they only refine my 1000ths of a second…

  4. Palmer by F1 standards has to be one of the worst drivers in it right now. Time and again he is trounced- not beaten, trounced- by Hulkenberg. I think Palmer beat Hulkenberg for the first time in qualifying at Spa; probably won’t happen again.

    1. He has scored 1 point in his entire F1 career to date, 1 point.

      And Joe Saward is trying to make a case that he should be considered for Williams next year as he’s over 25 and apparently a ‘decent driver’ who’s had ‘rotten luck’, please. ��😂��

  5. Interesting CotD by @Ferrox-Glideh, but I think there’s a good reason why history is unlikely to repeat itself in this case:

    Räikkönen was declared Ferrari’s #1 driver after the Italian GP in 2007, in order to preserve Ferrari’s last shot at the title. That’s not likely to happen in 2017, as Hamilton is currently clearly ahead of Bottas, so no swapping places (Brazil ’07), no non-aggression pacts to secure a 1-2 (Belgium ’07), no early tyre changes for the #2 driver to find the best moment for the #1 driver’s pit stop in drying conditions (China ’07). At least not in Bottas’ favour.
    If anything, the fact that Bottas is still relatively close to Hamilton in the standings could play into Vettel’s hands. Ferrari won’t allow Räikkönen to take any points away from his team mate, as his title chances are non-existent. However, Mercedes will be more reluctant to use team orders exclusively in Hamilton’s favour.

    1. Hamilton had an issue with the car. If that were to happen again like Malaysia 2016 or even Baku 2017, then Bottas could pick up the win and potentially the WDC. Just like how Raikkonen got that WDC.

  6. Can somebody help me figure out what Toro Rosso is getting out of this deal? It seem like the negotiation was something like, RENAULT: “Hey, TR, we’ll give your Reny engines to McLaren and you’ll get crappy Honda engines to race with, and in return you’ll give us your best driver. Deal?” TR: “Where do we sign?”

    I mean, what am I missing here?

    1. Can somebody help me figure out what Toro Rosso is getting out of this deal?

      money… lots and lots of money…

      1. Indeed. The upside is: Honda will be extremely motivated to prove McLaren was wrong to dump them and can actually building a good engine (they should hire people from either Mercedes or Ferrari to help them).

        1. They should have hired people from either Mercedes or Ferrari years ago. If they’re doing it now, they’re too late, but good on them.

    2. They say Honda gives away 100,000,000 pounds (happy wallet), i think you missed that, unless it’s not true, and honda gives just power units for free wich could still be a good deal for STR, unless that either is not true, and honda gives no money and charges for engines, and Toro Rosso has made the worst business deal in history.

    3. OK! Good answers, I definitely missed the Honda $$$ aspect.

      1. @chasm
        Also, Toro Rosso isn’t really a team in its own right. Their primary purpose is to serve Red Bull’s interests. Right now, Red Bull are fancying the idea of becoming a works team. The only engine manufacturer available for such a partnership is Honda, but equipping the very competitive Red Bull chassis with the awful Honda PU would be a horrible idea. Therefore, Red Bull stay with Renault for the time being and let their sister team sort out Honda’s teething troubles until the time is ripe.
        Worst case scenario: Toro Rosso endure a few deplorable seasons at the back of the grid as Honda fails to get to grips with the current engine formula, and Red Bull continue their partnership with Renault. Side effect: Honda’s sponsorship make running two teams much less expensive for the company.
        Best case scenario: Honda finally manages to improve the reliability and performance of its PU, putting it in contention with Mercedes and Ferrari. Red Bull become Honda’s works team and make good use of an ample knowledge transfer from Toro Rosso.

        Toro Rosso have (allegedly) agreed to this deal because that’s what Red Bull told them to. This isn’t about Toro Rosso at all, this is exclusively about Red Bull. The whole story boils down to Red Bull sacrificing a pawn.

        1. Perfect comment!

          And to add to the (not so) worst case scenario: Mateschitz has reportedly been looking for someone to buy out Toro Rosso. So even if the Honda PU doesn’t come through, there’s a possibility that Dieter could eventually sell TR to Honda (if they to have a got with a works team of their own), making up a few million euros in the process…

    4. Is there was a hefty penalty if Honda withdrawls? I can’t see why else they would stay in F1. Even then, I’d probably pay it and leave.

      Does anybody really benefit from this mess? Maybe Liberty?

    5. As I understand it, you’ve summed it up exactly right. Basically McLaren are buying STR out of their contract with Renault, and part of the payment is McLaren’s Honda contract. The only bit I don’t understand is what Carlos Sainz has to do with this. Maybe he has it written into his contract that he can be released from his contract if the team decides to use an engine inferior to the Renault engine.

      1. @drycrust, it seems that Renault have been keen to sign Sainz for some time now, so there has been the suggestion that McLaren might have helped Renault pay the cost of buying him out of his contract for 2018 as part of their contract with Renault.

    6. @chasm Sounds like that, strange. Horner said that RB has a veto on Renault just jumping to another team namely the McLaren opportunity, also McLaren can’t just ditch Honda.

      One would say.

      Renault is the key here, they wanted to seize the opportunity.
      Renault paid RB in order to terminate with STR, which means that STR is effectively open to Honda, then Renault paid McLaren for them to break their Honda deal.
      Renault gets McLaren. pays for the clauses?
      Honda gets out of an unwanted and costly marriage with a decent severance package and a new team.
      STR is going to have free PU’s and a bonus.
      RBR has less expense (STR) and another option in terms of PU’s.
      Everyone’s happy, particularly McLaren.

      But as you said that doesn’t make sense!
      Why is Sainz on the deal? DId Renault offered that much money?
      Unless RB actually wanted STR to get Honda, so RB offered their driver in exchange for the PU’s. Why, so? Was Renault going to hang STR dry?

      1. @peartree, @drycrust, Renault wanted sainz as part of price for ending their engine deal with torro rosso early.

      2. Unless RB actually wanted STR to get Honda, so RB offered their driver in exchange for the PU’s. Why, so?

        So that RB get a chance to be a works team in the future, albeit with a terrible engine.

      3. Ehm, @peartree I think you got Renault’s role here significantly wrong.

        Renault made a deal where they get Sainz and NOT insist on RBR/STR paying a fee for early termination of the contract. They are not paying anything. Honda will probably be paying STR/RBR money, apart from supplying the engines without being paid for them.

        Between McLaren and Honda, who knows. Off course McLaren lose the money they would have been getting from Honda, but whether they will pay for early termination or not probably depends on the small print. Afterall, there is probably a good case to be made by lawyers that technical issues, failure to deliver what was promised and damage to the McLaren brand left the team with little choice. I guess they will be sorting that in backrooms or maybe in courts in the coming months.

        1. @bosyber @bascb I know that Bascb that’s why I concluded

          Why is Sainz on the deal? DId Renault offered that much money?
          Unless RB actually wanted STR to get Honda, so RB offered their driver in exchange for the PU’s. Why, so? Was Renault going to hang STR dry?

          as I said we would think that Renault and McLaren wanted the change not RB, RBR could just benefit from it, instead they are putting Sainz jr on the table.
          I think it’s a good move for RB/STR but I think they could’ve “milked” Renault and McLaren as nobody would really think of getting Honda engines.

          1. @peartree, it could be that Renault indeed offered to (waive) a large part, or the entirety of the fee for ending that contract in exchange for Sainz.

            Also, how interesting it is to read today that Renault actually decided to end their engine supply to Red Bull after 2018, looks like Renault got a lot out of this deal they were looking for!

          2. I think it possibly shows some of how bad the relationship was and how much Renault had to be convinced to sign the deal in the first place last year @peartree.

            I also think that Renault was not unhappy to get rid of STR (and RBR from 2019 onward). But formally it was Red Bull (for STR) who were terminating the contract. It looks like Renault had put in quite solid protection for just such a case last year, so had a good negotiation position.

            But I actually think that Red Bull had been interested in the Honda engines anyway to get away from Renault. Probably in the hope of saving money, but mainly the prospect of getting a works deal out of it.

    7. They get an owner who now has to poor a bit less money in to keep them afloat @chasm. Apart from that nobody really cares for how STR fares, as Nase stated above.

      We don’t know exactly how much Honda is paying to STR/RB for this deal (or maybe they are not paying at all? I doubt that), but at least it saves STR an engine bill from Renault, and that is 20 million a year alone they save.

      1. On an overall basis, the incoming money in this whole driver-team combination is reducing as Honda is rumored to be putting lesser in TR per year than the 100 million they were giving to McLaren.

        I think monetarily, the biggest loser in this would be McLaren and Alonso who will have to take a pay cut for sure.

        1. Yeah, It is pretty clear that financially this is not going to be sweet for McLaren at all, and that will probably be affecting how much Alonso will be getting too.

          I agree that it is pretty clear that Honda is going to pay a great deal less than they are paying McLaren.

  7. 50% thermal efficiency. Oh my, if that is not road relevant I do not know what is.

    I wish my car had 50% efficiency. This then is cleaner than electric vehicles getting power from EU grid.

    Amazing achievement. It will be a shame to see these engines go.

    1. @jureo – I agree. The enthusiast in me misses the sounds of the V8s, but then, thinking of these efficiency statistics excites the geek in me. As well as things like using hybrid power for filling torque holes, etc. Honda’s struggles just go to show how good a job Mercedes have done.

      1. Certainly V8’s sounded awesome, V10’s sounded even more awesome. Original sin in sound was commited when V10 was switched to V8, that was essentially a step backwards. All serious development was to blown diffusers etc.

        V6 however is groundbreaking ICE tech. If we somehow get this tech on the road in range of 45-50% thermal efficiency for petrol engines, for the foreseeable future IC Engines willbe one of the cleanest ways to power our vehicles, that is until we do away with coal generated power for electric vehicles.

        Who knows when we end fossil fuel electricity generation, but until then internal combustion engine will bi the way to go.

        1. I agree that the V10’s sounded a lot better than the V8’s @jureo, even if – I prefer the V6s for their interesting tech, and found I prefer (during the race, and practice hours) the more silent engines.

          Anyway, from that article about the Mercedes AMG One (or what is its name), I recall they said that car’s engine manages to be 40% efficient – not quite the 50%, but a good step up from where ICE’s were before (and certainly for a supercar!). I am sort of sad that the 2020 cars will lose the MGU-H, even though it clearly is the most difficult, complex part, but perhaps it will be further developed and used in engines that manage to stay around after, say, 2040 (when countries like UK, France have blocked ICE’s on normal road cars).

          1. 40% on regular premium fuel is one heck of an achievement.

            MGU-H might become cheaper to make by 2021 or be included as a standard part, where development is frozen… I guess they will debate it.

  8. I understand why Red Bull wants this deal. I understand why Renault wants this deal. I understand why Sainz wants this deal. I understand why Honda has no recourse to the deal other than to drop out of F1 and/or sue McLaren for breach.
    What I don’t understand is why McLaren want this deal. McLaren is the patsy at the card table, and in this case a willing patsy.
    Give up a net $125 million per year of cash. Trade the fourth best engine for the third best engine. Give away the call option on being the (successful) Honda works team in the event Honda gets their engine right.
    A genetically stupid deal by Zak Brown.
    McLaren’s shareholders kicked out a legend of F1 (Ron) and replaced him with an overrated marketing dunderhead.

    1. Well, Gary. Each their own opinion. But I think one of the reasons why Ron was pushed out is because the owners of McLaren see the issue with being stuck with a hopelessly incompetative engine that costs them any potential to impress new commercial partners and little trust in Honda to ever make things work.

      The IF you mention is just too big an IF for McLaren after it turned into a debacle for the 3rd year in a row now. This is not a good deal for them. Nor really a step forward. It is an attempt at damage limitation so that they don’t end up fairing like Williams, or Lotus, Tyrell, etc. in the near future.

      1. I have to agree with Gary, Zak Brown doesn’t strike me as the type of character who could ever hope to achieve what Ron Dennis did. He is clearly not a thoroughbred ‘motorsport guy’, more your atypical American marketing fat cat who is moving heaven and earth to appease Fernando without an eye on the long term future of the team.

        I think the best McLaren can hope to achieve in this engine generation is 4th. Maybe that’s a good couple of places higher than the best they may have achieved with Honda before 2021 but then they would have gone into the (hopefully) simplified next engine era with a works engine and much less scope for them to get it wrong.

        Maybe i’m wrong and maybe the plan is just to see through the hybrid era with some better performances and a different works engine or maybe their own is already tee’d up for 2021, I hope so.

        1. I do think that has to be the plan @offdutyrockstar; though I also agree Zak Brown is no Ron Dennis, looking at three demoralising years, perhaps that isn’t what McLaren currently needs either.

          I think if you listen to news from the team, they really are all more or less feeling the same as what they allow Alonso to say almost every weekend, and that is devastatingly demoralising for a team, so they really do need a change of fortune, a way up. And they can see Red Bull, while not at the top, can show their chassis prowess often enough to be a good step for them, I think. And maybe they think they can do better (and they should think so, they are an F1 team after all ;)

      2. McLaren without roadcar business would be finished by now as a racing team.

        They would be alongside Williams, Sauber, Midfield at best tail end at worst.

        There is no team that can afford years with an noncompetitive engine.

  9. If Honda couldn’t even get close to getting things right working with McLaren, a team who despite being in a slump of form come with pedigree and are located right in the heart of motorsport, with one of the best drivers giving feedback then I struggle to imagine how they will get on working with a respectable midfield team, isolated from where the bulk of the engineering talent is.

    Even Ferrari have struggled to attract and hold onto key staff. Toro Rosso have faired well on a limited budget, some Honda money can only improve their stock, but I can only imagine things will be even harder for Honda now.

    I’m going to call it now. Honda will quit before the next power unit rules come into effect.

    1. @philipgb stranger things have happened. Maybe a more malleable junior team with less public pressure and a very good technical director in James Key is exactly what they need to bust out of their rut. I mean look at what Force India are achieving season on season, never say never.

      1. @offdutyrockstar

        James Key is very talented. I’ve thought he deserves to land at a bigger team for a while now. But there are no one man engineering teams.

        And where are Force India located?

  10. @philipgb given the general thinking that Torro Rosso is a test bed for Red Bull, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that there will be greater cooperation from the senior team to get things rolling smoothly and perhaps even allow them the use of factory resources in MK? The same place where Honda’s UK operation is based?

    All theoretical and i’m not saying this will definitely work out by any means. But nor do I think it’s as certainly doomed as you suggest.

    1. Infact i’d say that theory just gained a whole lot more credibility @philipgb

Comments are closed.