Two fans ‘bribed their way onto Singapore track’

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Two Formula One fans allegedly bribed a security guard to gain access to the Singapore Grand Prix track.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Yesterday’s article on how the next race could change the championship situation prompted questions over Kimi Raikkonen’s ability to win another title.

Has Raikkonen been anything more than number two this year, though?

I’m a sometime fan of his driving, when he’s fast – not so often these days – it’s a pleasure to watch, and I like his nonchalant style. but really, what other world champion would have so little expected of him? Where is the surprise or shock that, yet again, he’s not really competing for the championship? None at all. It really does underline that he won in 2007 only because of the fall out at McLaren.

The real question is whether he’ll be motivated to help or just do his own thing. Which he really seemed to be doing already at Singapore.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Nick!

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 Villeneuve reduced Michael Schumacher’s points lead by winning the Austrian Grand Prix on this day in 1997

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.

82 comments on “Two fans ‘bribed their way onto Singapore track’”

  1. I think the cotd about kimi´s 2007 dwc win being all about mclaren’s own troubles is a bit malicious thing to say. Not the least because mclaren had an illegal car that year because they effectively stole data from ferrari. Mclaren after all lost all constructor points for the 2007 season.

    I think everybody agrees that the kimi from 2003-2007 is not the same kimi that is in f1 today. After his lotus years kimi’s career could be best characterized as 2nd rate. Or uninspiring. But to call his “never give up” driving up to 2008 into question is just being controversial for the sake of it in my opinion. In the end it is just a combination of two things. Kimi being past his best and ferrari having clear number 1 driver in vettel.

    1. @socksolid There 2007 car wasn’t illegal, Yes they had a lot of the data from Ferrari’s car & yes there was evidence that they had used that data on the simulator with some of it ‘possibly’ making it onto there car but I don’t recall there ever been any question of there car been illegal.

      1. @stefmeister, it could also be pointed out that we know for certain that the F2007 was using an illegal floor, with questions about the legality of their rear wing as well, in the Australian GP. McLaren had informed the FIA about Ferrari’s floor after the Australian GP; the subsequent FIA investigation declared the floor was illegal and had to be removed from the car for all future events.

        Ron chose not to challenge the results of the Australian GP, but it has been pointed out that, if he had appealed against the results, Kimi and Massa would have been disqualified for using an illegal floor in the race. It could therefore be pointed out that Kimi won that race, and ultimately the title, that year with a car that was in an illegal configuration.

        1. @anon
          McLaren only knew about Ferrari’s floor because they did have illegal access to the car’s design. Chicken or the egg ?

          1. @tifoso1989, that is not disputed, but that does not also mean that Ferrari’s floor was any less illegal than it was judged to be.

            It also has to be pointed out that, frankly, you would be hard pressed to find a team that hasn’t been engaging in espionage against other teams. In 2004, we had the sight of Toyota’s headquarters in Cologne being raided by the police after Ferrari launched legal action against two former employees of theirs who had gone to Toyota, with the district attorney in Cologne accusing Toyota of using that information – although the FIA never took any action against Toyota, despite the men involved being found guilty of industrial espionage and receiving suspended jail sentences.

            In 2007, meanwhile, McLaren were by no means the only team accused of espionage – Honda later admitted that Stepney had also passed them some information, though claimed it was only a few files, whilst Renault were also investigated for espionage after they were found to have design drawings of McLaren’s rear suspension on their computers.

            At the same time, further down the grid the Spyker team, having protested the legality of Red Bull’s relationship with Toro Rosso, were not exactly being subtle either. At the Malaysian GP, Spyker submitted a formal complaint that Red Bull were breaking the rules preventing customer cars by using the same components on Toro Rosso’s car: to support that, they sent, according to the stewards official records, “a drawing alleged to be of the same component and said by them (Spyker) to be prepared by Red Bull Racing Limited but bearing two drawing numbers, one commencing with the prefix RB3 and the other with TR2.”

            Now, sending the stewards a copy of design drawings which still had Red Bull’s logos on is not exactly subtle – and yet, apart from Red Bull (who were understandably unhappy that Spyker had managed to get hold of drawings for their cars), nobody ever raised any questions as to what Spyker were doing with technical drawings from Red Bull’s design team.

    2. @socksolid to be fair, McLaren helped Kimi a lot that year… like it or not, both the team and its drivers left the goal open for him. It’s like saying that Vettel got his title because Ferrari messed up in 2010 (which is also right). That, IMO, doesn’t mean that they didn’t deserve it on both ocassions, but its the way things go in sport sometimes.

      I do think that the reason Kimi’s still at Ferrari is just to please Vettel. He’s the Massa of Alonso, or the Barrichello of Michael. Seb gets along well with him, he’s reasonably fast, but the point count doesn’t lie. He’s even behind Ricciardo having finished the same number of races, but on a much faster car.

      It’s the way Ferrari play it… not that they had to tell him not beat Vettel (because he does that on his own), but by hiring him they are effectively saying “Seb’s our number 1 and we don’t want that to change”.

      1. @fer-no65
        Let’s not forget that 2016 became a prospect for kimi only because of the death of Jules Bianchi (RIP). Ferrari extended Kim’s contract 3 times (2015,2016 and this year) on a yearly basis and the available drivers back then were not really that much better than kimi : Mercedes drivers Nico & Lewis locked and even if they were not they would have never considered quitting Mercedes, Ricciardo and Verstappen are also unavailable till next year and Fernando has just quit Ferrari.
        So it was Hulk or RoGro, Hulk got beaten by Perez and RoGro…. come on Raikkonen “tutta la vita”

    3. Kimi’ 2007 WDC in context shows just how impressive Lewis’ debut was and just how poor McLaren’s driver management was as they clearly handed the title to Ferrari and Kimi.

      Kimi won by just 1 point from both Lewis and Alonso.
      Kimi had 1 more no point finish (retired) than Alonso (same as no points as Lewis) yet still beat him.
      If Whitmarsh hadn’t insisted Lewis stay out in China, Lewis would have easily won the WDC.

      The top 3 drove exceptionally well that year, better Ferrari reliability would have cemented Kimi’s WDC, Kimi’s driving ensured he got that extra point, Alonso crashed (aquaplaning) in Japan and Lewis fell of the circuit on pit entry in china, if either where a points finish they’d be WDC.

      1. 2007 was undoubtedly Lewis’ best year in F1 and is always the first reference point of Lewis’ fans.
        He beat Alonso then, yet has only had the edge over Button and Rosberg since. Bar the odd wet race he hasn’t done anything as spectacular since 2007.
        2008 wasn’t impressive he looked to have blown it in the latter half and he let Alonso overhaul him in an inferior car(5th/6th best) in 2010. He left it to Alonso again to challenge Vettel until he went to Merc for the superior car.
        2007 was also notable for being Alonso’s worst year in F1. Had to change his driving style due to the tyres and made uncharacteristic mistakes that led to Lewis getting those impressive 2nd palces early in the season. He never felt comfortable in the team and had poor mental coaching. He’s done wonders since. Easily having the better over Massa and Raikkonen in equal cars who both beat him in 2007.

        1. I do not agree 2007 was his best year in F1. Maybe people were more impressed with his 1st year in F1 because they didn’t expect much from Hamilton and he delivered more than they expected. I would rather choose 2010, 2012 or 2017 as his best years in F1 over 2007. Maybe in some of these years(especially 2017) Lewis hasn’t been as spectacular, but he is just as talented and quick as he was and he has matured so much. 2010 is my favorite though. Ferrari was the 2nd best car that year as was pointed by this site as well and Mclaren was the 3rd best car. I don’t have the link for the data but it did show that Ferrari was better than Mclaren that year. Hamilton was also unfortunate to have been hit by Webber in Australia and Singapore that year, he was hit by Massa in Monza and his tyre failed 2 laps from the end in Spain. Put any Hamilton from 2010, 2012 or 2017 in the same situation in 2017 and he would have won the championship that year. The only reason Hamilton lost 2007 was due to inexperience. Had he settled for 2nd in China instead of pitting 2 or 3 laps later, he would have been champion. In Brazil as well, he tried to pass Alonso when he didn’t have to. He went from 4th to 7th and then had the gearbox problem. He also had some mediocre weeks in 2007 that went unnoticed due to no one expecting anything special from Hamilton. That year, he had sub par weekends in Australia, France, Nurburgring, Turkey, Italy, Belgium and then the championship disaster that was China and Brazil. This year, Hamilton has had sub par weekends in Russia and Monaco that could be put down to the car. He hasn’t made any blunders yet and has had exceptional weekends (Spain, Canada, Great Britain, China, Spa, Monza, Singapore to name a few). He has had like 3 Grand Slams so far this year which is crazy.
          I would agree that 2008 was oddly worse than 2007 for Hamilton but it still was a great season for Hamilton. 2009 you can’t really rate that well as he wasn’t on the championship hunt that year. 2011 was his worst by far but it still had superb moments (China, Abu Dhabi). 2013 was a good season for him as well. 2014-2016 maybe a bit underrated because he was in a Mercedes but he still performed brilliantly. If you compare those years with the other years, it isn’t too different. This year he is still competing with only 1 person, Vettel. The only difference is that Vettel is rated higher than Rosberg.
          To sum all of this up, I think 2007 was his 3rd worse year(or 7th best), only 2008 and 2011 were worse for Hamilton. His best years followed were 2010, 2012 and 2017(so far).

          1. 2007 was his second best, 2012 was faultless I think.

      2. I disagree completely with cotd that Kimi ‘only won because of the fallout at McLaren.’ Like many many drivers in many races and seasons, you have to be there in order to take advantage of other circumstances that are inevitably always going to happen. Ask DR this year. Kimi had already earned enough points to be within a shout of the WDC by the last race of the season. No kudos to him for that?

        Another here is saying LH would have been WDC if only Whitmarsh hadn’t had him stay put in China. Conveniently boiling it down to one thing.

        Ok I’ll play too, and then we’ll have three things of the many many that occurred that culminated in the 2007 WDC being decided as it was. If LH hadn’t disobeyed the team order to let FA by early in the quali session in Hungary, FA wouldn’t have been ordered to block LH by the team in order to make up for LH’s faux pas, FA would have kept the pole position he earned rather than being demoted 5 spots on the grid for the block, FA would not likely have finished 4th taking 5 points less than LH who won the race from the pole that rightfully belonged to FA, and there’s your WDC difference. It woulda, coulda, shoulda been FA as WDC.

        A thousand things happen every season to bring it to it’s conclusion. Kimi won because he did enough throughout the season to be there for the win in the end.

        1. @robbie

          if McLaren where run like Ferrari Lewis would have known he was the number 2 before the start of the first practice session & Alonso would have won the WDC by some margin. Thankfully Ron let them race and a star was born.

          Kimi earned his WDC by gaining the available points when he could, backed up by Ferrari’s no.1 driver policy.

    4. @david-br Regarding COTD. “But really, what other world champion would have so little expected of him? Where is the surprise or shock that, yet again, he’s not really competing for the championship?”

      Of the top of my head: Jenson Button, Jacques Villeneuve & Keke Rosberg. It’s nothing unusual really. But I agree it’s a pity and I think it really is time for Kimi to step down. Although I don’t agree that he won in 2007 only because of the fall out at McLaren. They had an unfair advantage and I think that Raikkonen was probably the best driver that year, so his championship is well deserved.

      1. @maroonjack I was going to say Jenson Button in response to that question. I used to think that if that man ever was to become world champion it would be on a sole occasion. Never looked like he’d win another or even looked that fussed about it either.

      2. @maroonjack, I’d say that is a bit harsh on Button given that, in 2010, he managed to lead the championship in the early part of the season and, for much of that season, was relatively close to Hamilton in terms of points (at the Japanese GP, which was three races from the end of that season, Button was only 3 points behind Hamilton and 31 off the lead of the championship, so was still in contention and arguably with a similar chance of winning the title that season as Hamilton had at the time).

        It also has to be asked whether any driver at the teams those drivers drove for at the time had a realistic chance of competing for the title anyway. In the case of Rosberg, for several years after his title the cars that he drove weren’t that competitive – it wasn’t as if his team mates fared any better. As for Button, in 2010 he did have a competitive car and, for most of that season, was competing for the title – in 2011 Red Bull quite plainly had a better car, whilst in 2012 we saw that the car was quick but difficult to set up and somewhat fragile.

        In the case of Jacques, I would say that quite a few probably didn’t really rate him that highly to begin with, such that I don’t think many were surprised at how quickly his success fell off after his title.

    5. Almost nothing is correct in your post regarding the 2007 McLaren. They didn’t have an illegal car, McLaren did not “steal” Ferrari secrets, they were passed between two employee engineers and there is a world of difference between knowing what your competitor is doing and what tricks he is using to actually deploying them on your car even if they were compatible which probably weren’t Like a flexible floor. That’s a complete re-design as was much of the other so-called ‘secret data’ . What irks me most is that the indignant Ferrari team (of which I am a supporter) were effectively caught cheating red handed and nothing was done about it. Ferrari had the illegal car in 2007, not McLaren who failed to gain anything out of this whole mess and ended up carrying the can. It was a huge penalty from which they never really recovered just because they had a few sheets of paper they shouldn’t have (and unknown by the top management) Totally disproportionate and if anything, a personal attack on Ron Dennis by Max Mosley as much as anything else. Nothing gets my goat more than revisionist history and Chinese Whispers much like the “illegal” 2009 Brawn which statement is equally as risible.

      1. Apologies. This reply is to @socksolid .

        1. @baron Thank you for that post. Some comments on this topic in recent days and weeks, especially aimed at Alonso, have been outlandish.

    6. Sorry @socksolid you thought the comment was malicious (and thanks to Keith for COTD, the comment was made knowing it would maybe provoke a backlash!) Like I said, I’m a fan of Kimi, or was before he started phoning in the performances a few years back. My point was that he should have been up there with Hamilton and Vettel as a title contender. And yet there’s almost no fuss that he’s not. As for 2007, I didn’t mean to suggest he wasn’t deserving of the championship. Only that McLaren messed up heavily and essentially took themselves out.

  2. Thank God for that. Looks like the MX GP will happen after all.

    1. @mfreire I never doubted it.

    2. But still I’d prefer the track to be damaged instead of the grammar school !

    3. Time for FOM or Liberty to do the right thing and donate a large majority if not all ticket sale proceeds to reconstruction efforts. Now that would be a great story.

      1. As far as i know ticket sale revenue is the only revenue for the circuit owners. All revenue from TV/ads on circuit goes to FOM. So it will make sense to donate part of ad revenue rather than ticket sale revenue

  3. On @David-br‘s COTD, I think it is true to say that in 2007 Kimi did benefit from the McLaren infighting between Alonso & Hamilton, However Kimi was also still at his peak that year & deserved the championship based on his performances alone.

    For example he won 6 races that year (2 more than either McLaren driver) & finished all but 2 races in the points with the only reason he wasn’t in the points for those 2 races (Spain & Nurburgring) been due to retirements caused by mechanical issues. Kimi made no big mistakes that year that I can recall while both Mclaren drivers made errors that caused them retirements (Hamilton in China, Alonso in Japan).

    I think even in 2008 he was still driving as well as he had been prior to that season but circumstances through that year didn’t go his way. It wasn’t really until 2009 that he seemed to drop off a bit be it a dip in motivation or something else, He just seemed to lose that spark that had made Kimi such an exciting driver beforehand.

    1. As to Kimi since his 2012 return to F1, I think at Lotus those 1st 2 years we had more of the Pre-2009 Kimi. He was super motivated to prove he was still as quick as ever, He was as aggressive as he had been at Mclaren & was again exciting to watch.

      Since he went back to Ferrari I think something’s missing again. We see that spark that endeared Kimi to so many fans in his earlier years every now & again but not enough & unfortunately on the occasions we do he often seems to suffer from some bad luck that doesn’t allow him to end up with the result he probably should have based on his performance.

      1. So the point to ponder is, why does Kimi hang around? I’d be surprised if he’s doing it for money, unless he’s partied all his cash away!

        On serious note, why would he stick around just to be around? He hasn’t shown any real pace for the 4 years he’s been back at Ferrari. Perhaps, just like most drivers, a race weekend must be a drug for Kimi, he’ll keep coming to the party as long as they’ll have him.

        At the end of the day, its Ferrari’s prerogative to have the drivers they want. Kimi is a safe pair of hands that wont rock the Seb Boat. I will not be surprised if Kimi stays on for 2019. Seb appears to have ironclad veto powers when it comes to the second driver, the last thing he needs is some upstart rookie who’s trying to make a name for himself. Charles Le Clerc better get comfy at Hinwil….

        1. I think when you say “hanging around” that your forget the part “hanging around driving the fastest racing cars on earth”. I would happily hang around :D

        2. I guess the question will be “Do Ferrari want Daniel Ricciardo or Max Verstappen enough to not give Vettel the right of veto over their appointment?”. I cannot imagine Maurizio Arrivabene turning either of them away if they decided to pay a social visit.
          I saw somewhere that last year some Italian newspapers were saying Daniel Ricciardo had signed a “pre-contract” contract with Ferrari. If this is true then somewhere in Sebastian’s contract is a carefully worded clause that allows Ferrari to sign up Daniel without Sebastian’s consent.

          1. Daniel Ricciardo had signed a “pre-contract” contract with Ferrari

            This is what I heard too, @drycrust. It seems he has an escape clause in his current RB contract that states that he is able to leave RBR in 2018 in case he has no race winning car. Due to his surprising win in Baku he is still bound to RBR in 2018.

            What is true of this story I really don’t know. I heard it during the period rumors spread Verstappen signed a “pre-contract” with Ferrari.

          2. Kimi is not in F1 for money- he doesn’t need it. By all accounts when he was young and started to make good coin in F1 he started buying real estate across Europe and has made a killing- he has more than enough for the next 5 generations to live like kings – BWOAH !

            Eddie Irvine was similar- a very astute guy that used F1 money to make him a packet – I live drivers that are skilled/connected enough to do that- some do not.

    2. @stefmeister He made a pretty big error in qualifying for the Monaco GP, which left him 16th on the grid I believe, and he ended up with a single point on a weekend where 6 was possible. Even though he ended up retiring from the German GP, he did make quite a Hamilton-esque mistake going into the pitlane on lap 1 which cost him quite a few positions and an easy lead. Moreover, Hamilton and Alonso

      1. I think your analysis is spot on @stefmeister. When he first arrived Kimi was very fast and exciting. He looked like he was in the same frame of mind when he arrived at Lotus but since he joined Ferrari I think he’s been disappointing.

        I can quite see that Seb is very happy with him as a number 2. He’s fast enough but not too much of a threat. What surprises me is that he seems so content to play second fiddle. People have mentioned Jenson and Nico as the same type of driver but to my eyes they never looked content to play second fiddle to their team mate. He’s a former WDC for goodness sake but quite frankly these days he is just blocking someone better from a top drive.

        If Ferrari really want to win the constructors championship they need to get rid because unless their car clearly has a big advantage, then it is not going to happen. I would like to see Daniel at Ferrari or someone like him. I cannot see Seb ever putting up with Max as a team mate!

        1. @phil-f1-21 Couple thoughts. I don’t think KR is happy to play second fiddle. Unlike most it seems, I believe that Kimi had, and believes he had, every opportunity to best SV from the start of the season but didn’t. And he only blames himself for being in the position he is in, not the team, not SV.

          Eg. Accuse Ferrari of favouring SV at Monaco, and Kimi will tell you he needed to find more pace and stamp his authority on the race. He was disappointed in himself, not the team, as he stood second on the podium looking glum.

          And ‘he’ is not blocking someone better from a top seat…Ferrari signed him, not another driver, and some obviously suggest SV has a big say in it too at Ferrari, the degree to which I’m not sure factually. You seem to think Seb can veto a MV signing.

          1. I see your point but I don’t think Ferrari the team see him as having a real chance of beating Seb. Let’s face it Seb is just a better driver, in this car and at this time. He is the one most likely to challenge for the WDC and everyone knows this. Even Kimi must see that. Ferrari seem to want someone who is fast enough, reliable and who won’t upset their star driver.
            The evidence is that Ferrari always look on their drivers as a 1 and 2. Maybe Kimi is not entirely happy with his role but he must be enjoying it to some extent or else why bother. I guess the team must think he is a good enough option which I see as a bit weak on their part.
            I expect, although of course I don’t know, that Seb would be very twitchy about having Max as a team mate and possibly even Daniel. He may not have a veto as such but I am sure he would make his views very clear and Ferrari do seem to like to operate with a no.1. and no.2 set-up.

          2. @phil-f1-21 That’s fair comment. My general thinking on this is that KR would rather not be at Ferrari nor in F1, if he knew he would have no chance to compete by being designated a number 2 driver from race one of the season. As much as you are right that Ferrari can be very much a one-rooster team, MS/Ferrari being the unprecedented most extreme example, Kimi seems to be under the impression that he would only be a 2 if the math (or the odds) dictated that he should no longer take points away from SV when at all possible. For me, if it was anybody but Kimi I would say yes there’s been a ‘hidden’ if nothing else 1 and 2 policy this year. But I truly believe KR had a legitimate shot with identical equipment and opportunity to Seb’s. And I don’t think they would expect Kimi to ever agree to that and would have gone with someone else if they were to express honestly if they wanted a subservient to Seb.

      2. Just to add about Kimi, I think of him as the driver who most dislikes politics, so I think when he senses politics overwhelming his ability to just drive the car undistracted, he has a lot less fun. Why is he ‘hanging around?’ Obviously he is wanted, and he has been able to deal with any politics sufficiently, and he was also probably very intrigued and encouraged by the new wider cars and tires. He obviously still loves what he is doing, Ferrari wants him, and the money, not that he needs it, isn’t bad either. F1 is super safe too. Why hang around? Why not is more the question.

      3. @mashiat He did make those errors you mentioned & while the Monaco qualifying one (Clipped the inside barrier at 2nd part of the swimming pool damaging his suspension) did cost him he was able to recover to get the single point that he ended up winning the championship by.

        I think thinking more about big race ending errors though, Lewis & Fernando both made 1 (Japan & China respectively) while Kimi didn’t.

        1. As an aside, and as a bit of idle speculation, I wonder what would have happened if Kimi had decided to quit at the end of this season. Who would have replaced him? It would have been very interesting to see.

          I doubt Ferrari could have prized Daniel or Max away from RBR before 2018. So who then? Carlos Sainz? One of the Haas drivers? Sergio Perez? I don’t think one of the younger drivers would have been considered yet.

          But anyway we have a fifth season of Kimi to look forward to…..Yay!!!

  4. Very interested to see how this “privileged customer” status works out for Mclaren.

    What exactly does it mean?

    Could it possibly mean that Mclaren will assist financially and technically with the development of the Renault Engine? Could it also mean that Renault will provide expertise to Ricardo in developing Mclaren’s Road Car Engines? The former is possible considering the Renault dont exactly run the richest works program on the grid. The latter is less likely if Mclaren are looking to build their own engines for the post 2020 era.

    1. There’s no such thing.

      They’ll get the same spec engine and software as the works team, but so does RedBull… so who exactly will they be privileged over?

      The works team can design the engine, software and chassi in conjunction. Without that, no team is going to win a championship. McLaren knows this, hence why they are looking at either Porsche to enter the sport or developing their own engine with a third party like Cosworth/Ilmore. RedBull is doing exactly the same (Aston Martin/Cosworth etc)

    2. You raise a good point. It is highly likely that Red Bull Racing are also “privileged customers” as well, so McLaren’s status would put them on par with RBR. I can’t see RBR being happy with McLaren being given privileges they don’t have.
      For me the important point is the Renault engine requires a bigger engine bay than the Honda engine. It has always surprised me that McLaren were so adamant that allocating the minimum amount of space possible for the engine was essential to winning, because now they are hoping to win with a bigger engine, so they have to admit a small engine bay isn’t essential. Aside from Honda’s right to believe they weren’t treated fairly, there is an important point in this, in that could Honda have produced a better engine if they were allowed to have a larger space? We don’t know the answer to that, but Scuderia Toro Rosso’s car was being designed to accommodate a bigger engine, meaning they might have less work to do to fit the Honda engine into their car than McLaren do to fit the Renault engine into their car. Add to that the question of whether the Honda engine could benefit from more space and it may be STR will be the F1 partner Honda were hoping for.

    3. I saw some rumours that McLaren has enough experience from their own Kers development (the initial system they had with the previous Mercedes engine) and possibly from trying to help Honda recently that they agreed to help Renault get on top of reliability issues @jaymenon10, @jeffreyj.

      For the future, the most reasonalbe way (if they can make the money work) would be McLaren, Aston Martin and Cosworth cooperating on developing a 2021 engine that they can then all use and develop further as their own. That way Aston has a route to go with the Red Bull/Horner team, McLaren can do their own engine and the sport gains an independant supplier in Cosworth too.

  5. I don’t know if anyone will agree with me here, but I just want to point out something about the bribery issue. The truth is – F1 is so god damn restricting to its own fans. I don’t think any of us who travel long distances to a Grand Prix have any malicious intent (oooh, I want to go to a Grand Prix and do something really illegal).

    We just want to feel more involved, really be a part of this event, touch our dreams, get something to remember for the rest of our lives. But I feel we get so little in return to A LOT of money and support we show. You get great atmosphere (most times) – that’s true, but that’s about it.

    The spectacle is almost certainly better on TV (again, sorry if it’s different for others, but that’s my personal experience – I’ve been following F1 since 1994, but visited only a few live races, this year’s Italian GP included). Long lines, ridiculous prices at the track, and LOTS AND LOTS of fences.

    Sometimes it feels like at the beginning of the tour in Jurassic Park. You are excited to be there, you know the creatures are there, but you don’t really get to see them, except brief occasional sightings, if you are lucky. And certainly, you don’t get to interact with anything.

    My point is – I think two fans in Singapore are stupid for bribing track security and bragging about it on Instagram (and definitely security staff did their job poorly). But I know why they did it – that was basically the only way they could get this little bit of extra personal stuff from the event because the only other way to do it is to be a part of Bernie’s Rolex club.

    1. I very much doubt they bribed the guard with anything more than pestering, but it sounds good on social media! No way a Singapore guard would take a bribe for that, just not worth it…

      1. Its a complete non-story. Most of the year including quite a lot of the build up to the race you can walk or cycle down the pit straight which is one of the few bits of the track which is not public road, and after the race they use the track as a quick way for people seated in zone 1 (pit straight etc) to walk to the Padang where the hold the concerts.

    2. Unfortunately it is a story because of the world we live in where terror attacks are a thing. Imagine if the same breach had occurred after Friday practice and someone had left a device behind an armco? Doesn’t bear thinking about.

      1. @offdutyrockstar I imagine “breaches” like this happen many times during a GP weekend and noone leaves devices.

      2. The only way to prevent a terror attack is to have a good intelligence network. Here in India we have security checks everywhere. We are frisked before entering sporting venues, metro stations, malls and pretty much any public place. You go on a drive at night and you are stopped by the police every 10km checking your car. In malls, shops and stadiums we arent allowed to carry backpacks inside. Even after all this security things do go wrong.

      3. Nope, still not an issue.

        People need to relax a bit, this isn’t Mosul.

  6. Love the Jurrasic Park anologyGreat comment.

  7. Just how close was Vettel to collecting Hamilton there. @RaceVideoIndex

    Just crazy.

    Just like F1 on fans, some guys bribe their way to the track at 3AM…. why is there not a service offered to the track, where they can walk the track at… say 3AM before the weekend or during?.

    1. @jureo Force them to wear rubber shoes so that they can really lay the rubber down and improve grip.

      1. Imagine Pirelli shoes.

        1. @jureo If you walk too fast or slow or walk to close to someone else, the soles fall off? Don’t try and walk around when it’s raining either!

          1. Sundar Srinivas Harish
            21st September 2017, 23:14

            Don’t worry, Charlie will call for the safety walker.

      2. Force them to use two types of shoe and a drs system on their backs to improve the show!

    2. To be honest I think it looks closer than it actually was. On Hamilton’s onboard you can see him reacting and slowing down a bit waiting to see which way Vettel was going to stick it in the wall. from 1.19-1.32

  8. @David-br Yawn. Just another completely wrong COTD about Kimi. Won in 2007 because of Mclaren? No, he won because he’s had the most race wins and because he did the least amount of stupid mistakes. It doesn’t surprise me anymore that re-writing history comment such as this is chosen as COTD. Keith Collantine is part of anti-Kimi journos community and it was showing long ago.

    Look, @keithcollantine, you must have seen this tactic doesn’t work at all. Not in the real world with Trump and Brexit and not in the F1 bubble with Raikkonen. The whole media was united against Trump and Brexit and here they still are. The whole F1 journos clique is united in wanting KR gone for 3 years now and here he still is. You know why? Because in the modern age people recognize that your opinion, or any journo’s opinion, is just another opinion, not any better or worse than their own. No matter how many anti-Kimi comments you will chose as COTD and how many anti-Kimi articles you will put on the daily roundup he’s still here. Deal with it.

    1. @montreal95 I’m not entirely sure why you’re suggesting there’s some kind of media-wide conspiracy against Raikkonen when I think it’s fairly clear that the concerns over his performances over the last few years are shared between journalists, fans, commentators, former drivers and many other people connected to the sport.

      I think the fans of this sport are widely intelligent enough to form their own opinions also, so suggesting that any criticism of Raikkonen in the media is fuelling some kind of anti-Raikkonen culture across the sport seems kind of ridiculous to me.

      And I think it’s clear why a lot of people have the concerns about his performance and especially given, like the CotD expresses, as he is a former world champion who is one of the most naturally talented drivers of his generation.

      I would be very interested to read a thoroughly analytical comment from someone who genuinely believes that Raikkonen is being completely viewed unfairly by the majority of fans, journalists and pundits alike.

      I think we’re often guilty in this sport of letting narratives over certain drivers tar their reputations a little unfairly at times (thinking Palmer or Stroll here, for instance), but I also think Raikkonen’s lack of achievements since his return to Ferrari is a recognisable pattern that is now into its fourth season as opposed to people making unfair judgements based on a temporary dip in form or a single incident.

      I think the critical attitude you’re seeing against Raikkonen isn’t reflective of a conspiracy against him, but more a reflection of a pattern of performances over these last three-and-a-half seasons.

      1. Incredibly well said.

        To my mind, the narrative around Raikkonen actually seems to apply the other way. What I mean is that we all know how good he is and what he is capable of, but being constantly shaded by his team mates during his second Ferrari stint is so deeply disappointing that many would rather he called time on his career rather than continuing this way and risking further tarnishing his reputation.

      2. think we’re often guilty in this sport of letting narratives over certain drivers tar their reputations a little unfairly at times (thinking Palmer or Stroll here, for instance), but I also think Raikkonen’s lack of achievements since his return to Ferrari is a recognisable pattern that is now into its fourth season as opposed to people making unfair judgements based on a temporary dip in form or a single incident.

        Well said and my nomination for COTD @willwood

        @montreal95 you sound insane. The Trump analogy explains a lot.

        1. @offdutyrockstar So someone who disagrees with you is insane? I have zero to discuss with one like you I won’t go down to your level.

        2. Admins delete my posts, but comments like this calling people names for disagreeing is kosher? He doesn’t even have a good point…

      3. @willwood Thanks for the detailed response first of all . Now, I’m not against criticizing Raikkonen. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion and I’m his fan not a fan-boy and have frequently criticized him myself. But the narrative in the media seems to be to criticize him over and beyond what is fair, denigrating his previous achievements and re-writing history. This narrative has received a backlash from KR fans, which only seemed to strengthen the resolve of journos to gang down on KR further as if to prove a point. That’s how I see it from Raikkonen fan perspective.

        Some recent examples:
        1)Stuart Colding’s completely wrong article on Autosport published 2 days before KR was resigned for 2018 where he argues KR should retire. It’s completely ok for a fan or a journo to argue that KR should retire, but the reasoning was all re-writing history and wide off the mark. Understandably after such a piece, KR fans suggested to Mr. Colding that it is perhaps he who should retire. Which only seemed to spurn him to go down on KR even more.

        2) Staying on Autosport, Ben Anderson’s driver ratings column, are considered by many to be extremely unfair to Raikkonen especially. By that i mean he loses points for things others wouldn’t have lost and doesn’t gain enough points in the opposite cases.

        3) Last one about Autosport: Nigel Roebuck was the last decent journo there but he too joined the chorus lately which makes me extremely sad as I have the utmost respect for Roebuck but it seems that the “wave” is too hard to resist…

        4) Moving on to other media there was an article in the Daily Telegraph by Natasha Henry after the Hungarian GP which was completely unfair to KR on many levels.

        5) On Skysports there was an article claiming that VB has been a better rear-gunner than KR this year. I agree with that conclusion. But the reasoning was again completely unfair. Any mitigating circumstances on occasions where KR wasn’t able to finish close to SV were omitted, while every such circumstance regarding VB were taken into account.

        6) All these articles claiming after KR signed for 2018 that it was an unimaginative choice and that virtually anyone else would be better despite the evidence to the contrary, namely all who would be definitely better were unavailable etc. The general tone was “surely they could do better”. And when you point to them that if you say the word “surely” you must provide proof to that effect, they act like it’s just another KR fan attack.

        And that’s where my theory vaguely outlined in the above comment comes from. KR has a legion of loyal fans willing to defend him from any perceived unjust criticism whether from a fan or a journo. Journos may believe their opinions have more value and when fans point out to them that a certain piece of their criticism was unfair it only serves to strengthen their resolve to prove to those “pesky peasants” who’s boss, which leads to further anti-KR articles. Again it’s only a theory, my personal opinion, I hope it’s not the case but journos are human as the rest of us and it would be completely in line with human nature to act that way.

        I want to reiterate: I’m completely OK with criticizing KR. I agree he’s not on a level he should be, that he’s completely enable to adapt his driving style when a certain car/track doesn’t suit him, that he’s inconsistent(follows from the previous point) etc. But denigrating his past achievements, claiming he doesn’t care, that he’s in it only for the money, discussing his psychological state like everyone suddenly has a license for practicing counseling etc. this is not a fair criticism and it’s not acceptable.

    2. @montreal95 There is no conspiracy here. Kimi isn’t performing on track as well as he did in 2007 or 2012. People just discuss things like this on the internet. If no one discussed this, then that might be a media conspiracy.

      1. Yeah was just going to add in defence of @keithcollantine not that he needs it, I think often cotd(s) are picked because they raise debatable points, thus sparking debate. I certainly have never had one incling that they were picked because Keith is anti anything or anyone. When he does give his opinion he points out clearly that it is a comment piece, and he’ll also in some articles give a pros and cons summary followed by what he thinks, and this all subject to debate. Everyone free to agree or disagree, preferably with good reasons for one’s stance, and without insulting anyone.

      2. @ferrox-glideh It’s one thing to debate Kimi’s form. It’s quite another to somehow “prove” your argument by denigrating the value of his WDC. My opinion is that this is a low level comment that’s unworthy of COTD and the fact that it received it nonetheless says a lot about the one who put it there not just the comment writer.

        1. It’s just my impression @montreal95. I like Raikkonen’s style on and off the track, I’ve always thought he adds something different, and when he’s fast, he’s very fast, ruthlessly so. It’s great to watch. However. Sometimes he seems undermotivated and more interested in setting FLAPs than winning championships. I agree it was a bit unfair of me to link the fact that he won in 2007 because McLaren messed up (which is still true enough) and his apparent lack of motivation in other years, particularly more recently. I guess the point I was trying to make was he doesn’t seem to act like other F1 champions who’ve seemed more hungry after winning. People pick up on that hunger and generate expectations from it: we know the likes of Vettel, Hamilton, Ricciardo, Alonso and Verstappen want to win. But Raikkonen? Not really.

    3. @socksolid I’m not against Kimi Raikkonen at all. I just think he’s a safe option now for Ferrari to keep Vettel happy, but not really fast enough. Another driver might well be outperforming Vettel. Can Ferrari really afford that position? If they had easily the best car, maybe. But as mostly second best, it’s seriously cost them this year I believe.

  9. Big WOW at the journos, the couple paid him a nice sum of cash to let them on the track for a photo op…bribery is a bit of a polish job for the article (click bait) don’t you think?

    1. bribery is a bit of a polish job for the article (click bait) don’t you think?

      No: The individual who made the allegation used the word “bribed”.

    2. JoshJ81, the individual who posted that photograph included the statement that he had “Bribed the security guard to let us onto the track.”. In this case, the journalist is repeating exactly what the person who posted that photograph said – i.e. they claimed to have bribed the guard – and you are complaining because the journalist was accurately repeating that claim?

  10. How much to bribe a drive at Williams.

    1. Anything up to $40,000,000 a year depending on who you believe…

    2. Maldo payed $30M US per year

  11. @keithcollatine, I simply don’t understand: why are Red Bull accepting Honda engines for Toro Rosso? Money surely isn’t a problem for Mateschitz. So why accept a very poor engine?

    1. In a nutshell, Torro Rosso won’t be much worse off than they are right now (Sainz’s 4th place at Singapore notwithstanding) and they believe the Honda can come good, thus giving them a works engine option for the main team.

      If they don’t, they still get a boatload of cash injection in their junior team with whom the constructors championship expectations are already on the low end of the scale. It does actually make sense.

  12. Interesting comments, presumably by Singapore residents, concerning the illegal track entry, inferring that F1 was only for ‘rich people’ and expressing surprise that F1 was still relevant even. It’s interesting because Singapore is not a poor city. I never gave this much thought before and can’t help wondering as a result what is the actual local response to F1 in genuinely poor regions. They must surely hate it. If the new management of F1 want to take their brand forward it might behove them to actually create a benefit of some kind to the local community. Something tangible, not just for rich folks. Or am I wrong? Is F1 just for rich folks and it should stay that way? Rich of course being entirely relative..

  13. Sorry to say but I don’t think Cosworth can produce a competitive engine for F1 anymore. They just don’t have the resources to compete with the big car manufacturers. Not a bad idea to develop an engine for McLaren road cars.
    If Porsche, Honda, Renault, Ferrari, Mercedes can supply an engine as per the new 2021 rules that would be a win.

Comments are closed.