F1 needed a leader, not a dictator – Carey

33 comments on “F1 needed a leader, not a dictator – Carey”

1. 

   Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
   15th September 2017, 0:37

   There’s a lot of land around the track to reprofile the old track to modern standards, I believe. If they wanted to, of course. Not sure about the 90’s version, it was quite narrow already, and there’s not much room to make something nice out of it.

   Honestly, having visited the track very often, and driven around it including the old loop, this isn’t like Mexico. They had the city very close to the Parabolica to recreate it. This is in the middle of no where, and there’s a loooot of room to do something cool, or at least inspired by the old track. The proposed layout is horrible.
   1. 

      Ju88sy (@)
      15th September 2017, 8:30

      @fer-no65 A quick look on google maps yesterday highlighted this! Not short of space to do something cool with the track.
   2. 

      GeeMac (@geemac)
      15th September 2017, 9:03

      Exactly @fer-no65. If I recall correctly, the rationale for ruining the Peraltada was that they couldn’t push the barrier back in order to create the run off necessary to make it safe for modern F1 cars. Well at Buenos Aires, they do. I can’t see why the FIA couldn’t create acres and acres of glorious tarmac run off and keep the layout as it is.
   3. 

      ECWDanSelby (@ecwdanselby)
      15th September 2017, 12:14

      Thanks for the COTD, Keith.

      I actually now work in track design and starting to understand how the whole business works. What I meant was, they’d spend absolute millions on designing this ‘new-old’ track, only to come out with a circuit that’s essentially fully of slow corners (with a straight in between, admittedly). Why not renovate the GP circuit if you want that kind of circuit? Rest assured, it’d be a ton cheaper. I’m not entirely sure what gains you’d make by butchering the old, long circuit in to a slow layout? Is 1 overtaking spot worth multi-millions?

      Both Mexico and Argentina have some constraints, but looking at the map, you could definitely create a Parabolica style turn by pulling the turn back towards the lake a little. Admittedly, it may have to be somewhat tighter than the Parabolica, but you’d at least have 1) a good overtaking spot, and 2) a mega exit that would retain the characteristics of the old turn.

      Also, Mexico wanted to build a stadium section, whereby the cars would have no choice but to be very slow due to run-off constraints. I don’t necessarily like that from a driver’s perspective, but from a spectator perspective, it works well.

      So unless they’re planning on building a stadium section (again, more millions), I see absolutely no rationale as to why they’d put these hairpins in.
2. 

   Biggsy
   15th September 2017, 0:41

   As the old wisdom goes, if you are contemplating giving up on something, try to remember why you started it in the first place, and then see whether it’s a good decision or not.
   McLaren seems to have forgotten why it took up the Honda project. If they wanted to have as best engine as possible, they could have stayed with Mercedes for the last 3 years. But they took up the Honda project because there is no substitute for being a works team and having hundreds of millions pumped into the team annually.
   Zak Brown might be a good manager, but it seems he doesn’t have enough of a reputation to weather this one out against the shareholders. And how I just loathe that word – shareholders…
   The whole culture is geared towards just trying to avoid being the one who will have to take the responsibility for the failure, while nobody is willing to take an initiative and lead for fear of failure. That’s how all the giant corporations die out. Like tired old men, they just lose their hunger and become risk averse, feeling they have too much to lose.
   1. 

      pcxmac (@xsavior)
      15th September 2017, 0:43

      competition is almost the only thing that keeps people honest, with out it you get things like F1, where the people at the top decide who wins and who loses.
   2. 

      Kevin Amery (@k-l-waster)
      15th September 2017, 0:58

      @Biggsy All that may be true, but if anything Honda has been getting worse rather than better. They are arguably farther behind the other engine manufacturers now than they were this time last year both in terms of power and reliability.

      You may need a manufacturer, but that doesn’t mean you need *this* manufacturer.
      1. 

         Biggsy
         15th September 2017, 1:20

         @k-l-waster
         They don’t have a better one and won’t have a better one for at least 3 more years. So better stay and work towards something than trundle around with a worst customer engine option.
         1. 

            anon
            15th September 2017, 6:52

            Isn’t “staying and working towards something” exactly what McLaren have been doing for the past three years, with no real improvements in performance for those efforts?

            There have been repeated problems throughout their partnership with Honda where Honda promised performance packages that they failed to deliver. This year alone they’ve been lagging 4-6 months behind their intended development plans in terms of increasing the peak power of the engine, whilst in terms of reliability they are even further behind schedule than planned – which seems to have been what scared Vasseur off from the deal Sauber had signed with Honda earlier in the year.

            At what point would you accept that this relationship is just not working and cut your losses then? Because, to some extent, whilst you accuse McLaren’s current management of being “risk adverse”, continuing to stick to Honda no matter how poorly they do because you are unwilling to give up works engine status starts sounding like the sort of risk adverse behaviour you are decrying…
         2. 

            Ju88sy (@)
            15th September 2017, 8:46

            McLaren can’t afford to stay with Honda any longer, better to spend the next three seasons fighting for podiums than languishing in 9th devoid.

            They have 3 seasons now to evaluate what to do when the new engine regulations are agreed, it is very likely the hegemony of the three large engine suppliers will change with new entrants, McLaren could even develop their own with the partnerships and existing expertise they have.

            I disagree with your observations on the reasons for company longevity or otherwise, but that is not a topic for an F1 site!
         3. 

            Robbie (@robbie)
            15th September 2017, 12:30

            @Biggsy Since things have evolved as they have, I would suggest you’d have to be in Mac’s position to understand why they made their decisions, and understand as well that they have wrestled with this decision a great deal. Everyone just wanted to see Honda get it together as their first best option. And it hasn’t just been about pu’s either. It’s been about trying to retain the driver that many tout as the best on the grid. Very easy to provide a blanket statement from one’s armchair about everyone trying to avoid responsibility, and I just don’t buy that for a second.
   3. 

      Bonbonjai
      15th September 2017, 6:09

      Risk averse, yes, but can anyone see some light at the end of the tunnel with Honda. That is the question. Can anyone see some improvement from Honda, that the power unit would get better, & more reliable, to justify some confidence in McLaren saying the goal of winning with them as the Honda works team was viable. Their obvious answer was no, & after 3 years I can’t blame them.
      1. 

         Lee1
         15th September 2017, 11:33

         This year they have started to work with Ilmore. This started after they realised there were issues with the engine. I would not be surprised at all if next years Engine benefits from Ilmores experience and proves to be pretty good.
   4. 

      David Not Coulthard (@davidnotcoulthard)
      15th September 2017, 8:50

      nobody is willing to take an initiative and lead for fear of failure

      To be fair, a certain Ron was
3. 

   Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
   15th September 2017, 0:51

   As for Alonso, I get the feeling that he’d be better off leaving McLaren for Renault. The chances of Renault creating a good package of car and engine are greater than a team that’s been relegated to backmakers for 3 years and now sport a customer engine.

   He knows them, he’s won with them, they made good progress during the year and have room to continue doing that. Renault can build a winning combo.
   1. 

      Strontium (@strontium)
      15th September 2017, 1:31

      @fer-no65 I never gave this much thought, but I’ve just thought how cool it would be if, a very unlikely scenario, Alonso were to return to Renault and win his third world championship with them.

      Since the first two, he would have been to McLaren, back to Renault, to Ferrari, seen Renault leave F1, back to McLaren, seen Renault return to F1, then back to Renault.

      I think Alonso should stay with McLaren for 2018 and see how both teams progress. You make a good very point.

      But there is a big problem in that Renault aren’t expecting to become competitive enough any time soon, and within the next few years it will become hard to ignore Alonso’s age
   2. 

      Ju88sy (@)
      15th September 2017, 8:50

      @fer-no65 Don’t forget the Enstone team was woefully under resourced for many years and they are still trying to rebuild and recruit, right now I would back McLaren over Renault for 2018 – it’s clear that the McLaren chassis this year is in good shape.
4. 

   Arrows98 (@arrows98)
   15th September 2017, 0:55

   We just need to look at Keith’s ‘Engine Component Use’ table to understand why McLaren is giving up on their Honda hopes: their PU not only lacks power, but it has also has used twice as many of any of its components than almost all of its rivals. Compared to it, now, even the Renault is a big improvement.

   Of course, everything could change in the off-season: Honda may very well have a breakthrough and become the class of the field, but that is not where the smart money is…
   1. 

      Robbie (@robbie)
      15th September 2017, 12:35

      Yeah I think there must be little indication or none that Honda could have a breakthrough. Honda has obviously run out of things they can say of enough substance to be convincing.
5. 

   Jay Menon (@jaymenon10)
   15th September 2017, 1:01

   “It could be that Honda next year is very competitive, but I don’t know what is decided for the future”

   Considering Alonso’s luck, that could very well be the case!
6. 

   Bustertje
   15th September 2017, 7:44

   Regarding the bling helmets this weekend, can someone explain me the helmet-rule. I thought it wasn’t allowed to change the design during the season.
   1. 

      Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
      15th September 2017, 8:07

      You’re allowed 1 change of design over a season. Some have definitely gone over that however.
   2. 

      KaIIe (@kaiie)
      15th September 2017, 8:13

      The drivers are allowed to change it for a single race during the season.
   3. 

      IJW (@)
      15th September 2017, 8:40

      I think the drivers are allowed one “one-off” helmet design per season. Some use it for their home race.
   4. 

      Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
      15th September 2017, 12:15

      Officially, it’s 1 substantial change of design per season, and as many “minor” changes of design as desired (the difference is that a minor change retains most of the features of the previous design). In practise, I think it’s possible to ask the FIA for permission to do a special change for a second race, provided it’s clear the driver asking isn’t doing it just to make anyone or anything look silly… …though I’m not sure anyone has tested this, preferring to just use the “multiple minor changes” route.
7. 

   GtisBetter (@)
   15th September 2017, 9:10

   Isn’t a dictator a leader too? I don’t see the problem with having one guy wielding most of the power in a world where every team only fights for their own interests. Bernie just had his priorities on making as much money as possible. We need a dictator who wants the best for the sport.
   1. 

      Bustertje
      15th September 2017, 11:04

      Priority’s is usually the problem with dictators…
   2. 

      moblet (@moblet)
      15th September 2017, 11:16

      …and isn’t the dictator the one with the best moustache?
   3. 

      Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
      15th September 2017, 12:42

      A dictator can be a leader, but a dictator who is no longer leading is the problem F1 faced pre-Liberty.
      1. 

         GtisBetter (@)
         15th September 2017, 17:42

         He was leading boatloads of money out of f1
8. 

   Gary
   15th September 2017, 9:17

   No, what Formula One needs is a capital structure that doesn’t require an annual return of $800 million in after-tax operating profit, and whose assets it supports are nothing more than the legacy of Bernie, Slavika, Petra, CVC, Waddell & Reed, etc.
   1. 

      Gary
      15th September 2017, 9:31

      There is a reason it is “behind the paywall”, and why a weekend at the track with your family is going to set you back $2,000 or more, and it is because of the reason I posted above.
9. 

   tom
   15th September 2017, 21:29

   To the Steve Koltes of CVC. CBS anchor woman Cindy Hsu recently got involved in dangerous coraption business with infamous CBS anchor Otis Livingston to rob CVC employees bank accounts. Never trust Cindy Hsu and Otis Livingston they need to be arrested!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comments are closed.