Daniil Kvyat, Toro Rosso, Hungaroring, 2017

Kvyat ‘back for US GP’ – sponsor

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: One of Toro Rosso’s sponsors expects Daniil Kvyat to return to his regular seat at the United States Grand Prix.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

An interesting question from JC:

Has Hamilton ever had a season without a retirement? Just curious, Malaysia last season was heartbreaking for him and heavily influenced the championship outcome, just as Vettel’s from Singapore has this season.

I hope we do have a title fight that goes down to the wire, with all the team politics and team mate supportive drives that includes. I’d also like to see Hamilton win his fourth drivers’ championship.

Hamilton has never finished a championship without retiring at least once. However he didn’t post a single mechanical retirement until the final round of his third season – the 52nd race of his career. He also avoided any mechanical retirements in 2013 (he had puncture arising from contact at Suzuka). Since the new V6 hybrid power units came in he’s had at least one retirement due to a technical problem each year.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Brian Munene and Spencer Ward!

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

  • A double breakdown for McLaren helped Jacques Villeneuve win the Luxembourg Grand Prix today in 1997. Look out for a new article on this race later today

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

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

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 61 comments on “Kvyat ‘back for US GP’ – sponsor”

    1. Personally think we’ve seen the last of Kvyat in 2017.

      1. Personally I hope we’ve seen the last of Kvyat in 2017.

      2. It might not be the case at all, unless Gasly proves to be a genius in Formula One.

        Right now, he sits second in the Super Formula Championship, half a point away from the leader. The last two races are held in the same weekend as the US GP. Now, why is this important? Why should Red Bull care about their junior driver winning some national championship?

        Gasly drives a car with a Honda engine. The championship leader has a Toyota engine. The next Honda engine in the championship? Naoki Yamamoto, 9th, 23 points away from the lead. Gasly is Honda’s only chance to win the premier Japanese open-wheeler championship this season. And Toro Rosso will have Honda engines next year (with Red Bull possibly switching at some point in the future). The last time Honda won this championship was in 2013, and it’s a 2-horse race with spec chassis. I would assume Honda really want to win this.

        So the picture is clear. Red Bull would win nothing by forcing Gasly to run the US GP (it might be hard to score points there even with veteran drivers, let alone a driver with just 2 races of experience), but it could start their relationship with Honda on a bad note. But if Gasly wins the championship? I’d figure Honda would be really pleased.

        1. Exactly, @casjo. Honda, Red Bull and Gasly himself have all the reasons to get him to try and claim that Super Formula Championship.

      3. It’s a shame. He definitely had potential when you look at his rookie and sophomore seasons. He just completely lost it the day he was dumped by the senior team. I was hoping he’d bounce back this season, but he just doesn’t seem to even have a hint of the driver he used to be.

        I think it’s time up for Kvyat in Formula 1.

        1. Does the fact that several times he’s looked better than Sainz this year not bring a single hint that he still decent at times?

          I think a fresh start with a new team mate will mean less pressure on him and he will be able to perform better again.

          1. I think a fresh start with a new team mate will mean less pressure on him and he will be able to perform better again.

            with who? Ericsson?

    2. Has Hamilton ever had a season without a retirement?

      Has anyone?

      1. Turn the question around – “has Hamilton ever had a car not capable of running at the front”?

        1. Could it be his speed and talent meant only teams with good cars came asking for his services. You may not like his personality, but his quality as driver is undeniable.

        2. @jaymenon10

          Yeah plenty of times. 2009 he spent half the season in about the 5th or 6th fastest car. And in 2013 the Mercedes was probably the 4th or at best 3rd fastest car.

          1. @philipgb
            In 2013 Mercedes was the fastest car in qualy the first half of the season, however it’s tyre wearing issue was behind their poor race pace. As the season evolved, Mercedes gave up on the development of the W04 while RBR pushed the development of the RB9 to the last race of the season.

      2. Schumacher in 2002 and Chilton in 2013 come to mind, there may be others

        1. Ricciardo last year

        2. @celicadion23, Kimi in 2012 and Heidfeld in 2008 are two other examples – it is still not particularly common though, and Schumacher was the only driver who managed to do it in a season where he also won the title.

    3. More action; less talk Liberty media.

      Us fans want the on track action improved much more than the off track events.

      1. It’s better for us to be patient and let Liberty Media sort out the problems and get things right. There’s a lot of work to do, and some of it… sorry, a lot of it requires tact and diplomacy.

    4. RBRs expenses clearly show how in F1 spending more can cost you less, as long as you win win win that is.

      1. Agree @hohum, to me the more important message is not that they have upped their spending for this year, but that Mateschitz really had Red Bull Racing working for almost no money at all in the recent past (was about 2,5% of its budget, now paying maybe 10% this year to get back up there)

        1. Let’s not forget the massive global marketing exposure they get for their brand. Non-winners get that too, although of course winning helps. And they have.

    5. What’s with LHs big announcement ?? He’s switching to MotoGP ? or buying a motorbike ? or maybe a MV Augusta helicopter ?

      1. My guess, @hohum? Ad contract with a motorcycle manufacturer.

      2. Hopefully Hamilton will announce he has taken the advice of his friends in fashion;

        “Lewis, anybody tacky enough to put ‘Still I Rise’ on their butt should give up on fasion and keep their day job.”

        1. New Merc contract for Hamilton.

          1. Won’t that be announced sometime next year? I don’t think LH would have the permission from Mercedes to set up such an announcement and that he’d do that via a non-Mercedes related pic. Merc will want to make a big splash out of it…at least I would if I were them.

        2. Give the guy some credit. His taste might not be everyone’s, but he is been himself. Besides I like it. I think was Mia Angelo said that.

      3. MV Agusta is producing a limited run Lewis Hamilton edition of their F4 bike.

    6. Are vegans supposed to wear bike leathers Lewis?

      1. Well actually…..no.

      2. Not all vegans are vegans because they’re protesting against cruelty to animals. For many its about their own health…

        1. I’m this case LH also speaks of ‘cruelty’ and although he is vague on what exactly he means, he does mention the incredible numbers of cows that are produced and the global impact that has pollution wise. Perhaps he means cruelty to animals but also how cruelly we treat our planet, and he’s not wrong. But that is funny about the motorbike leathers tie-in.

    7. Been a while since McLaren had to compare its performance with anyone on the grid. I just hope Red Bull doesn’t wipe the floor with Mclarens next year.

      1. 3 years they kept on boasting about having the best chassis while it couldn’t be compared.
        Now that it can, suddenly the rhetoric changes from “we have a great chassis” to “this is a good test”.

        1. In all fairness the engine swap will leave a lot of work to do integration-wise as well as mappings etc. It will surely take a full year before McLaren can get a good grip on its setup. My guess is that it will reveal its true potential in the second half of 2018 with a podium as a target and it will be really serious in 2019.

      2. I honestly think they’ll do well next year. Sure, they’ll have some problems initially because of the switch to a new engine, But I’m sure they’ll take the fight to Red Bull and fight for podiums.

      3. Of course if McLaren do turn out to be on Red Bull’s level you have to worry about Toro Rosso…

    8. Bernie style was the correct one, people forget it but F1 became a swamp after Senna died. Sean needs to go Bernie.
      The 10 point plan should be;
      1. Revenue-sharing = adapt a British football-system. Not completely equal but enough. Budget-cap solves much here.
      2. At least 25 tracks and 1/4 altered every season. Teams less track knowledge = less predictable races.
      3. Adapt Indycar Aerodynamics. Remove those evil wings of disturbance or make DRS a skill by making it free to open. Ground-Based aero leads to more spectacular crashes = move viewership.
      4. Make Motor-sports a proper ladder system. Promotion/relegation and only F2/Indycar(vice)-champions should be able to join F1 or a consecutive top 3 contender in both F2 and F3.
      5. You need a nationalistic racing league = A1 GP = Along F1 with super-license status of GP2 to be taken seriously.
      6. All penalties except race bans become points penalties.
      7. 3 cars each team with the extra cash. Budget cap will make 1-2-3s a myth.
      8. A panel of permanent ex-drivers that can independently act and are audible in their exchange of explaining the penalty as stewards during the races, for example corner cutting which need to be dealt with by, yes gravel traps.
      9. Much softer tyres. The US tyre should be a sole Q3 tyre.
      10. Broadcasts need to be much more spectacular. We need helmet-cams, live multi-view camera shots, more telephoto shots, live radio broadcasts, much more UI displaying components and their state of charge, fuel flow, tyre-temps.

      A lot of the misfits arguments are not be taken seriously;
      It will not become Nascar as Ferrari still has the larger base of knowledge then Sauber (1),
      If you yearly alter at least 1/4 of the calender you influence the teams building and knowledge of the car development, which means less predictive races. If Sochi was located in W-Europe everybody would be quiet. They won’t say it but it’s true (2).

      Personnel can easily shift mechanics and when it is implemented people will still tune in for the 4 extra races. Don’t lie.
      Younger audiences like crashes, and have increasingly shorter attention-spans, keep your anecdotal evidence of your kid away (3), every World Championship of a sport gets better ratings, fact (5), which global sports has icons that never get banned? NFL? TDF? UCL? Poor Schumi, he could’ve has 8 like this. (6).
      Electronic disabling is just as dangerous, and these are grown men, they should be able to die or get hurt, that tests mental skills as well. Point of Maldonado, Grosjean, Ocon, Perez and Verstappen is that they come from a era where you don’t get psychically hurt, those bollards are just just as ridiculous as joker laps. They need to feel it (8), if you want to solve pollution – go to China and India, not F1 and F1 does quite little outside Ferrari for helping car-sales or active car-tech these days (9) and this one is overlooked, the there is a lot of useful live telemetry that is missing.

      Now off to another Mercedes win in Sepang.

      1. There’s some great points in here.

      2. The 10 points make sense, but don’t think those would be Bernie’s.
        3) DRS, free everywhere is great; standard aero kit is wrong.
        4) ladder system in F1 does not work; unless whole teams can ascend/descent. Many casual fans think that F1 type motorsports is only about the driver (and setting up the car). However, F1 is like a ‘trinity’, Car Constructor; PU Constructor; Driver.
        6) fully disagree: IMO in-race penalties are better for all driver errors.
        7) prefer more teams (12+) rather than 3 cars; 3 cars create more team orders, and unfair blocking.

      3. Some good ideas in there. What I miss and I think other do as well is the ability of the star drivers rejoining the race if there car fails rather than a DNF

      4. Some good ideas yes… but floating in a sea of not so good ones, gots to say. Bernie’s style was ‘the correct one’? Not a good opening, even if you’re saying the sky is blue.

        these are grown men, they should be able to die or get hurt, that tests mental skills as well


        1. @maciek

          Yes. In every top tier part of sports, people need to actively be pushed on the limit and sometimes over it. It helps athletes develop. This is clinical psychology, it sorts the men from the boys. Cars are already very safe these days, it will not turn into the 70s.

          Bernie’s management-style with the large varieties of interests in F1 was very harsh but effective. No prisoners. People don’t remember the sport was just as commercially attractive as cycling now is before the Schumi-era. He dared to made (sometimes bad indeed) decisions against the voices of the polarized masses that have different interests, that made the sport grow to where it is…. today. Liberty needs to make the sport healthier but have a 51% decision power. Sometimes the majority just doest know enough to know what is right.

          1. @xiasitlo

            Sorry, which particular branch of clinical psychology is it that concerns itself with separating men from boys?

            Bernie’s management style was indeed effective – in turning the sport into a cash cow for himself and friends, but a woeful failure in growing real value, improving and making it viable and sustainable as a business (as a opposed to a venture), not to mention as a sport.

            1. @maciek

              PHD & PHyD, Section editor of the International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology U.S Based Zella Moore and BBC journalist Frank Gardner OBE had a great book 12 years ago in a mix of cognitive and clinical sport psychology and Zella continues to teach these lessons in Manhattan at the 15th best university of the country, they argued the different directions of psychiatry and psychology can help athletes worldwide. So go read that please.

              Btw…Blatter doing the same but making football the best watched and commercially attractive sport in the world is also not viable as business and a sport?

            2. @xiasitlo
              I don’t understand your reference to Blatter – how is that relevant to whether Bernie was effective or not?

              And since I won’t read that book or other things from those people, no matter how many impressive titles are appended to their names, perhaps you’d be so kind as to give us a little round up of their main ideas, in particular what they say about separating men from boys through exposure to risk of death and how that relates to F1?

              (hint: I was trying to get across that ‘separating men from boys’ is not a sound basis for an argument about sport safety)

    9. Oh I forgot. Point 4. Yes even some WDC-winners would’ve not entered with my rule. The only ones I can recall without googling are Kimi and Schumi. I truly think if that is an argument here then I sincerely hope pay-tv gets more expensive around certain places. Their talents would’ve showed anyway and 91 and ’01 were completely different times. Making an exception for certain drivers by a test-license GP a year before to gain extra points is something I would support but the influx of these GP3 kids that foul-mouth multiple-time WDC-winners is preposterous. Even Schumi got scolded when he came back from Sauber drivers. Ludicrous.

      1. @xiasitlo, your posts come across as semi-incomprehensible rants, to the point where I am wondering if you were drunk when you wrote them given the random jumps in logic (though at least these days you’re not randomly putting parts of your posts in bold or in italics).

        Since you ask, under your system you would have blocked a lot of WDC winning drivers – Vettel, Alonso and Hakkinen in more recent times, whilst going back further in time you would have also blocked the likes of Senna and Jones from competing (in fact, from 1967 to 1984, no driver who won the historical Formula 2 championship ever won a title in F1). At the same time, I note that you lash out at Maldonado, yet under your system he would be welcome in F1 as a GP2 champion (in fact, there are quite a few drivers against whom you rather bitterly and unjustifiably lash out against in what feels like a rather vindictive manner).

        Whilst I do not mean to be rude, this idea, like all of the ideas in your post, come across as ill thought out and with no real practical considerations (though that lack of thinking things through is very evident from the rest of your post).

        1. @anon Agreed.

        2. I didn’t know drunk people actively use italics and bold text < This one put me to serious thought.
          The only point I find constructive – as your historical champions come from such a different era – I never said Maldonado didn't deserve F1. My point was, those dumb crashes would've stopped much sooner if he got seriously hurt in one of them.

    10. It’s really telling if you have a driver who will leave the team at the end of the season, but you bench the other one, to try out one of your junior drivers.

      1. Lol yeah much less to lose subbing Kvyat than the guy who regularly places higher, plus TR/RBR hasn’t exactly ‘fired’ CS.

    11. Honestly feel STR are better off if they have Kvyat alongside Gasly next year. Cant deny the fact that Daniil has valuable experience in F1 which can be put to use especially when STR are trying out something new (read Honda).
      Adding another rookie would simply complicate their driver reliability issues which may go unnoticed if Honda fails again. And if they keep failing, come 2019, STR will have two relatively inexperienced drivers (if they don’t retain Daniil) who wouldn’t have had a chance to showcase their true skills–good or bad. But i guess that would be a bigger problem for RBR more than STR.

      1. @webtel

        This is what I think. It is unlikely that Toro Rosso will get a pair of rookies as good as they did in 2015, so don’t risk 2 rookies again. I’m certain Kvyat will be better than any rookie, especially to start with. I have a feeling though that if Gasly gets a race finish that gets him more points than Kvyat has got this year, then a lot of people will probably instantly assume he’s better. Well I don’t think that will be enough evidence. Kvyat did very well in 2015 and he may possibly be able to repeat that driving level next year if he’s paired with a rookie and the pressure is off him. If he remains, I think this is the way things may go. But Kvyat seems to deal with bad luck worse than some other drivers. He needs a bit more patience. Since the team are getting Honda, he may have to practice staying calm! But lets hope Honda can work out better now they will be with a new team.

    12. I think Toro Rosso should break with convention next year and bring in an experienced, safe pair of hands to effectively be a test driver for them.

      With the switch to Honda, and two top flight drivers occupying the Red Bull seats, the priority has to be mileage and feedback from the driver. With rookies they sacrifice experience and have drivers eager to prove themselves potentially at the cost of finishing races. And with Kvyat they have a driver still keen to prove his worth to Red Bull, and with a tendency to get into tangles with other cars.

      They don’t want a driver that is more focused on their own stock than the feedback needed for the power unit.

    13. Has Hamilton ever had a season without a retirement?

      While that’s a perfectly valid question, something about it doesn’t quite feel right. Maybe it’s the context that makes it sound as if never having a season without a retirement was rather unusual and a big disadvantage for a driver who fights for championships.
      Now, Keith has answered that question in quite some detail, but I feel some more context is needed. Therefore, my question is: How does the reliability throughout Hamilton’s career compare to that of other drivers? Are there any easily accessible statistics that can be used to compare current drivers’ career reliability (my gut feeling is that reliability has never been better than in the past decade, so that drivers from past eras would automatically be ranked lower than virtually every currently active driver.

      1. I think a lot of Hamilton’s reliability problems stand out due to how many times he’s had potential wins lost due to them.

        2012 was a painful season to watch if you were a Hamilton or McLaren fan.

        2014 it was incredible that Hamilton still took that championship when accounting for the amount of lost points.

        And 2016 a single failure amongst all Mercedes power units falling to Hamilton turned out to be a decisive incident.

        1. @philipgb

          I think a lot of Hamilton’s reliability problems stand out due to how many times he’s had potential wins lost due to them.

          That sounds about right. That’s precisely the reason why I’d like to find out how reliability has affected all the drivers over the years. My impression of Hamilton’s reliability so far has been quite the opposite of what seems to be consensus among his fans. The 2012 season does stand out, as Hamilton drove in an entirely different league compared to Button, but he lost so many point due to technical failures that the points standings told a completely different story. However, I tend to disagree about the 2014 and, somewhat less, about the 2016 seasons. But that’s been discussed to death and beyond, and I have zero interest in that happening again here.
          So, how can we compare how the average reliability of today’s drivers has been throughout their careers? Time to gather some fact to put our gut feelings to the test.

          1. Check f1 metrics’ last blog post, it’s about how much drivers can affect reliability! Like usual, lots of statistics there. (sorry for double comment, it posted previous one in the wrong place)

            1. Thanks!
              Before reading the article, I had a starting hypothesis, and the article confirms it at the very end:

              Since about 2007, reliability has been much higher in Formula 1. It is reasonable to assume that drivers today have less influence on mechanical reliability than drivers in the 1980s and earlier.

              I don’t know if I would’ve chosen 2007 as a pivotal year in car reliability, 2006 with the introduction of those horrible neutered V8 engines would’ve been a more likely choice for me. But the point is: Most drivers today have only known a time when parts had to last several races and were closely monitored from the pit wall, i.e. times in which the impact of the driver on reliability has become negligible.
              In fact, I can only think of one clear example of driver-managed reliability in recent years: The 2014 Canadian GP. Both Mercedes suffered simultaneous MGU-K failures, and while Hamilton’s brakes quickly gave up the ghost, Rosberg managed to bring the car home with an extreme brake bias setting, driving around the issue.
              Long story short: This blog post confirms what I had been thinking anyways. Looks like I’ll have to gather the data myself.

    14. Check f1 metrics’ last blog post, it’s about how much drivers can affect reliability! Like usual, lots of statistics there.

    Comments are closed.