Fernando Alonso, McLaren Honda Andretti, IndyCar, Indianapolis, 2017

“Very possible” McLaren will switch to papaya orange in 2018

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: McLaren racing director Eric Boullier has indicated the team is considering a switch to its heritage ‘papaya orange’ racing colours for the 2018 F1 season, as raced by Fernando Alonso at the Indianapolis 500 last year.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

The Lance Stroll debate continues.

Stroll’s 2017 performance answered nothing. He lucked into a podium and was consistently behind an about-to-retire Massa. If Bottas was on average quicker than Massa, and Massa was on average quicker than Stroll, well, you get the picture. Sure he has potential but he better start improving faster than he is. Perhaps he’ll do a reverse-Kvyat and just get faster?
Adam (@Rocketpanda)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Lazzar!

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

  • Jim Clark put his Lotus on pole position for the South African Grand Prix at East London today in 1962

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

  • 66 comments on ““Very possible” McLaren will switch to papaya orange in 2018”

    1. I’d love to see the proper McLaren livery, there was huge disappointment expressed by many this year.

      Having said this, given McLaren are always trying to create an innovative branding, I’d love to see something like a chrome orange paint. Imagine how good that would look.

      Whatever they do, I hope it is on the entire car and not patched on in an unsightly design

      1. I hope they stay as far away from papaya orange as possible. I love to see it on the old cars because of nostalgia. But without the nostalgia it’s just a dreadful colour. I enjoyed this year’s livery a lot and I wish to see the same – modern – orange on the car again next year. Should be easier to market the road cars as well.. people will buy their Alfa Romeo in Alfa Rosso or their Mercedes in the iconic grey metallic. They will not purchase their P1 in papaya…

        1. They will not purchase their P1 in papaya…

          Yes, they do. If you google for pictures, it’s one of the most popular colors.

          1. Oh, I underestimated its popularity then, I think..

        2. If had the money, and was in the market for a McLaren road car the only colour I would consider is the papaya orange. It’s classic McLaren. It’s like buying a Ferrari in red.

          1. But classic Ferrari is yellow?

            1. @spafrancorchamps, the civic colours of Modena is yellow, which is why it features as the background of the shield in the logo, but Ferrari’s cars have traditionally been painted in red. Yellow, as far as I can tell, has usually been associated with Belgium – the privateer ENB team usually ran yellow cars – and to a lesser extent with Brazil, most notably with Fittipaldi’s cars in the later years of his racing team.

              There have been a few exceptions though, most notably in 1965 when, for the final two rounds in the US and Mexico, the works Ferrari’s were entered via Chinetti’s NART division and were painted in blue and white (Enzo being in a dispute with the Italian motorsport authorities about the homologation of one of his sportscars and using NART as a way to get round them and continue racing).

        3. I enjoyed this year’s livery a lot

          I stopped reading at this point.

          1. Best livery of the grid!

            1. @spafrancorchamps IMO, Toro Rosso and Sauber were better.

            2. It wasn’t bad except for the painful lack of sponsors and that horrid white bid on the sidepod.

              RB, Williams and Ferrari were the top ones for me personally, i enjoyed the last 2 years Saubers, though i seem to be a minority :)

      2. Exactly. And really, last year was the perfect opportunity with the new look cars to do it, and they missed it, badly. So, not holding my breath waiting for it to happen next year.

      3. Alonso’s IndyCar looked pretty good in that color.

    2. It’s interesting that Lewis apologised for this controversy but didn’t for the tax avoidance. Different approaches there from presumably his PR team

      1. He shouldn’t have apologised for none of the two.
        Surely not for trying any legal method to pay the smaller amount of taxes he can.

    3. I think you will continue to see a case of announcements, of changes, the broadening of fan touchpoints in terms of how we are going.

      Can anyone translate from corp marketing speek to English?

      Not sure I want Bratches touching any of my points. This time of year though, a case of announcements is probably better than a six-pack.

      1. Is it hipster speak? Anyway…I think they mean to say that they are going to announce new ways to get fans involved in the sport.

        1. I’ll suggest that ‘fan touchpoints’ in this context are the things they have talked about changing and that fans have been saying they would like to see as well, such as closer racing, more noise, and smaller teams having a better chance, with the big teams having a little less weight. I don’t think fans have been asking for more US style driver introductions lol, so I think it is about the core changes they have talked about doing.

          I’m very encouraged that they have a good method in place that doesn’t involve just spewing out random knee-jerk ideas but rather is something the teams have been given to digest, and let the discussions ensue, with the aim being a well thought out and discussed plan for the long term, properly implemented.

    4. I don’t believe wolff’s explanations for a second. Mercedes had 4 teams in 2015 and 2016 and it was no problem. But when mclaren wants to buy an engine 4 teams is suddenly too many. Sure… I’d imagine the real issue in the negotiations was something else mercedes wanted but mclaren did not want to give away. It is unlikely the issue was with money as the price point of the engines has been set as far as I remember. Does anyone anywhere actually believe this guy?

      Mercedes does not want any competitors but renault is probably happy there is a top team willing to put their engines into possibly even front row. It will take at least another year in the midfield for the renault before they can compete for podiums or wins. When lotus sold their team to renault the team was functioning at bare minimum. All the skill and expertese was sold to competitors. It takes time to build that back up. So it is probably good to have someone else with renault power units in the sharp end of the grid while the factory team works its way back up.

      1. Maybe Mercedes wanted a guarantee McLaren’s drivers weren’t going to say bad things about their engine?

        1. That fit the reason Wolf gave about not servicing Red Bull

          but Wolff says it is that kind of attitude that puts Mercedes off supplying the team from Milton Keynes.

      2. I don’t think it’s hard to believe. Mercedes were capable of supplying 4 teams in those years because they knew with sufficient lead time they would be doing.

        However for next year they will have been prepared to have production for 3 teams in place and no more. The McLaren dealings was likely also in part about palming Honda off on another team, and with the Sauber deal falling through, all the dots couldn’t be joined up soon enough Mercedes who likely committed to providing 3.

        Renault can take McLaren on without much issue because Toro Rosso are taking Honda leaving their supply available.

      3. Mercedes are definitely lying about there not being enough time. But I don’t think the reason is that McLaren was considered a threat.
        The real reason was that Mercedes didn’t want to be seen as the one pushing Honda out of the sport. They said that so themselves.
        This meant that it was then Mercedes’ job to convince someone to take Honda. Mercedes’ influence extends to Williams and Force India, but neither were probably willing.

        And its not just Mercedes, even Ferrari didn’t want to be seen as the one pushing Honda out. Hence the Sauber deal happened which gave McLaren leeway to search for a new partner without impacting Honda’s involvement in F1.

        1. @Sumedh Can’t agree with you. I don’t believe Mercedes are ‘lying.’ And I’m not sure about Mercedes and Ferrari and your suggested supposed concern of theirs over pushing Honda out, and I do wonder about the context of that. I certainly would be highly surprised if Mercedes somehow thought it was their responsibility to find a home for Honda in F1. I could certainly see them (Mercedes and Ferrari) saying they weren’t about to go to Mac and suggest they dump Honda in favour of their pu, ie. try to sell Mac their pu’s. But beyond that I don’t see why Merc and Ferrari would care about Honda’s business, if Mac came to them and said they were through with Honda. Perhaps you could clarify the context under which supposedly Mercedes and Ferrari said they did not want to be seen as pushing Honda out? Their main mission in racing is to occupy the top two spots on the grid on Saturdays and Sundays, ie. push everyone else out.

          1. And I’m not sure about Mercedes and Ferrari and your suggested supposed concern of theirs over pushing Honda out, and I do wonder about the context of that

            These articles clearly mention that Mercedes (and Liberty and FIA) wanted Honda to continue in the sport. I remember reading about Ferrari as well but can’t find the source now.

            https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/131520/mclarenhonda-split-moves-closer
            http://autoaficionado.blogspot.in/2017/05/sauber-signs-with-honda.html
            https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/03/17/lets-be-sensible-about-honda/
            https://www.motorsportweek.com/news/id/15765

            I can’t say why there was this motivation of these parties of keeping Honda in F1. The motivations for FIA and Liberty are quite clear. They want more manufacturers in F1.
            Regarding Mercedes, I think the motivation may be coming out of reasons far distant from F1. There has been a higher amount of collaboration amongst manufacturers worldwide since the rising popularity of electric vehicles and government regulations becoming stricter in many developed countries for petrol and diesel powered vehicles. Mercedes probably do not want to upset a potential collaborator in Honda over a small squabble in F1. For these companies, F1 spend is quite little compared to their future profitability in an EV-world.

            1. sumedh, the problem with that theory is that Daimler, the parent company of Mercedes, is already working with the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance – they have a small stake in the companies in that alliance and have already collaborated on the development of new car platforms and new engines.

              As things stand, the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance are the largest sellers of electric cars and one of the largest investors in future platforms for electric vehicles – I believe that they are estimated to have sold more than 420,000 electric vehicles in recent years. By comparison, Honda is lagging a long way behind in terms of electric vehicles – barely selling a few thousand electric vehicles over the same period, and with a relatively limited range of vehicles.

              Honda have been amongst those who had bet fairly heavily on hydrogen fuel cells instead – they’re pretty much the only major automotive manufacturer that seems to have put most of their focus on hydrogen fuel cells now. Daimer had been researching fuel cells, but has recently heavily cut back on that and shifted more towards battery powered cars as they are much more economically viable – others, such as Hyundai and Toyota, have also scaled back as well and shifted more resources into electric cars over fuel cells.

              As things stand, therefore, Honda are making a fairly sizeable gamble – if they can pull off a viable fuel cell car they’d have the market much to themselves, but if battery vehicles end up winning out, Honda will have a lot of ground to make up on its rivals.
              Either way, in the wider automotive world, Mercedes’s current areas of research dovetail much more closely with the design work that rivals to Honda have been carrying out, so there is less of an incentive to work with Honda and arguably more interest in working with Renault.

            2. Still can’t see in these cited articles where Mercedes are lying, nor where they want to help Honda stay nor where they see that as their job. Sure there is mention of them not wanting to appear to push Honda out, but that’s a far cry from helping Honda stay. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mercedes doesn’t want F1 to appear to be losing manufacturers though, but again, not their job to ensure that. Note the timing of some of those articles too…late August, early September…hardly time to gear up to supply another team with pu’s, and really pushes it for Mac to adapt to a new pu as well, although I think we’ve heard since that Mac is catching up in terms of that process.

      4. As I understand it, the time taken to manufacture the crankshaft for an F1 engine is 3 months, so the minimum time taken to make an engine is longer than that. So why would Toto’s claim be wrong? After all, you aren’t just supplying two engines per team in Melbourne, you need to supply at least one engine per team for the practice sessions in February, and you need to have contingency engines ready to cover for an engine being damaged in a crash.

        1. And add the support crew placed in each team, you don’t just employ someone off the streets overnight.

        2. They can because they already started making them, because there is only two and a half months before the new season starts. Plus they are making four less motors per team next year so they would be making the same number of motors. Teams only get three motors in 18, it was 5 this year so they’ve got time.

      5. And best of all: Supplying 3 teams (6 cars) with 4 PU’s in 2017 is exactly the same amount as supplying 4 teams with 3 PU’s (per 2018 regulations).
        @socksolid

        The most interesting quote was about RBR

        It is exactly because (RBR) are saying it like this and undermining their current partner that they are not having (a Mercedes PU)!

        In Formula One, like everywhere else in life — be it your private life or business life — it’s about compromise and acknowledging your partner’s strengths and weaknesses and helping each other out.

        1. Red bull got lots of bad press during that time but in reality renault was doing really poor job with the engines. And red bull was supposed to be the factory team for renault and renault left them hanging out in the dry. The renault engine was very poor and even then it took renault a full season to come up with just one upgrade that was a coin flip whether it was even worth running or not. Red bull could have said it smarter what they said but all they said was true. My opinion was that renault was thinking of pulling out from f1 but then at the last minute decided against it.

          Renault has been pretty flaky engine manufacturer. They did not even get enough parts to toro rosso so that team had to build engines from used old parts. The renault team just seems to be finding itself in controversy one after another but sure it is red bull’s fault their deal ended?

          The only reason merc did not sell engines to red bull because mercedes was afraid of red bull. Just like ferrari was/is. All the other excuses are just smoke and mirrors. I mean come on?!

          1. @socksolid Even if it was true that they were literally ‘afraid’ to supply RBR, isn’t that understandable? Firstly it would be understandable for Merc to have that kind of respect for a team that not long ago won 4 Championships in a row, and has Adrian Newey.

            Secondly, they surely wouldn’t just come out and say ‘we’re afraid,’ right? You may call it smoke and mirrors, but I think what has been done and what has been said, makes sense. Teams are always going to use diplomatic wording around these types of issues. One of the issues was agreeing to marketing terms. If Mercedes was going to supply RBR with pu’s, and RBR could potential challenge them in the Championships with said pu, what would the global marketing look like? What marketing impact (and how would it be implemented), would Merc want and get if Mercedes themselves were beaten by RBR, using Mercedes engines? Would RBR, known to badmouth their supplier, underplay the aid having a Mercedes pu afforded them? Surely they wouldn’t be able to badmouth a Mercedes Pu without being laughed at, but what guarantee would Mercedes have that they wouldn’t still downplay it and say it was their drivers, and their chassis, that made the difference, for after all, they even beat the works team?

        2. @Egonovi

          Supplying 3 teams (6 cars) with 4 PU’s in 2017 is exactly the same amount as supplying 4 teams with 3 PU’s (per 2018 regulations).

          Thing to remember is that Ii order to help with cost’s they will only produce what they need to, If they have a deal to supply a team with x number of engine’s they will setup there entire engine program to produce x number of engine’s.

          In 2017 with 3 teams/6 cars with 4 engine’s per car (Plus x number of spares) & there engine program would be setup to hit those targets & there 2018 there 2018 program that would have been planned/finalized in September/October would be based around supplying 3 teams/6 cars with 4 engine’s per car (Plus x number of spares).

          To add a 4th team they would have needed to know they were doing so by early September at the latest in order to have there engine production program setup to produce engine units to supply 4 teams the number of engine’s required. Once there production program is set & started it’s very difficult to suddenly change the targets to produce more units for an extra team.

          Think of it like this, Your making a dinner for 4 friends & buy enough food to make enough for 4 people. Then you find one of them is bringing a 5th person with them once you have already started cooking, It’s difficult to change plans & have enough for a 5th person at that point. You need to know exactly what your doing before you start to ensure enough for everyone.

      6. @socksolid Does anyone actually believe this guy? Yes, I do.

        It is not just about agreeing to supply engines, and having enough time for both parties to ready themselves and adapt physically, it is also about many legal discussions surrounding how, in this case McLaren, would name their team, place Mercedes logos, but most importantly promote the Mercedes brand globally. Changing all their media packages, websites, arranging and agreeing promo days and dates etc etc etc. It is far from just simply making some more engines for another team.

        This is the type of stuff that was revealed when there was some possibility of RBR dumping Renault and potentially having Mercedes or Ferrari pu’s. Aside from the innuendos about supplying the enemy with your gold, it is also about agreeing all the legalese and marketing stuff. Mercedes would want to maximize their marketing impact, especially if they’re going to supply a top team with their top equipment.

        I don’t think the concept of a team badmouthing the pu manufacturer applies for Mercedes, as there is nothing to badmouth about their dominant pu. RBR badmouthed Renault when their pu had failed to be competitive right out of the gate in 2014, and still isn’t quite there, and of course we all obviously know how badly Honda failed Mac.

      7. I think the key to understanding is the wording. Mercedes said they would supply an engine, the problem for McLaren is that it is not THE engine. The Factory team has THE engine, the others don’t. McLaren didn’t want that.

      8. @socksolid

        Mercedes had 4 teams in 2015 and 2016 and it was no problem.

        And they were able to do that because they knew they would be doing that several months in advance so had the manufacturing program setup & ready to supply 4 teams from the date there 2015 engine program began.

        Should be noted that not long before the deal with McLaren was signed Renualt were saying the same thing about been unable to supply a 4th team at such short notice.
        https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/renault-fourth-engine-supply-mclaren-948714/

        The engine manufacturer’s will have a plan in place by a set date at the end of 2017 to supply x teams with x number of engine’s by date x in 2018. Once that is set they will ensure they have the staff & manufacturing capacity to hit those targets & to help with cost they won’t produce any more engine’s than they need to so there isn’t an excess supply to suddenly pick from should another team want/need one at late notice.

        It’s the same with anything. I think back to 2003 when Minardi made a really late call to move from Michelin to Bridgestone tyres & found that Bridgestone had no tyres available for them at the start of pre-season testing meaning they had to run on old F3000 slicks for testing. For the start of the season Bridgestone were able to supply them with 2002 spec tyres but it took an extra month before they were able to ramp up production enough to come up with enough 2003 spec tyres to supply a team they weren’t expecting to supply when they initially finalized there 2003 program.

    5. I agree that Stroll didn’t prove anything. But I’m not ready to write him off. In a sense he had to do something similar to Vandoorne fighting Alonso. Just be it Vandoorne is much better than Stroll and Alonso is as wel all know quite some lengths ahead of Massa too. We might not always think that good of Massa but he remains a successful GP winner, an almost world champion and a proven asset to any team. He’s got pace some on the grid are still jealous of, and 10+ years of competition in any sport has to count for something against a little fella who’s probably yet to kiss his first girl…? No?

      1. Unfortunately, we’re not going to see him partner with a strong driver. Both Sirotkin or Kubica are unknowns, so it’s a little hard to gauge Lance’s potential in 2018. I’m hoping he has a proper driver like a Perez or Ocon to be his teammate in 2019. I honestly believe Lance is rubbish, and probably the weakest driver on the grid after Palmer’s departure.

    6. ”Wolff insists Mercedes was interested in a deal, but says he was not able to put the infrastructure in place to cater for a fourth customer team at such short notice.” – Replace the word ‘fourth’ with ‘third’ as they currently have two customer-teams, so had they reunited with Mclaren it’d (the number of customer-teams) be three, not four.
      – The potential new Mclaren livery looks cool, so I wouldn’t mind if it were ultimately chosen for next season’s2018 car.

      1. ‘for next season’s car.’ I thought I had removed ‘2018’ from it.

      2. ‘Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains’ is an independent company with different directors/board (Niki sits on both boards) though both are subsidiaries of Mercedes (Daimler AG).
        Wolff is not directly involved.

        ‘Mercedes-AMG F1 team’ is a customer of ‘Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains’.

        1. @Egonovi It doesn’t really go that way, though. Mercedes-AMG F1 team, Scuderia Ferrari F1 team, and Renault Sport F1 team are PU-factory/works teams regardless of whether the PUs are produced under the same roof as the cars or not and the other teams using their PUs are technically the customer-teams.

          1. @jerejj, that’s the popular (common man’s) view.
            Technically and legally it’s not correct; Toto Wolff was right.

    7. A McLaren with a title sponsor on the bodywork would be a better sign for McLaren (and the sport) than what colour paint they use.

      But if they care about the livery, they’ll hand it over to one of the amazing people who do fan made liveries like Sean Bull or pjtierney, rather than the in house crew who have been churning out incoherent rubbish for years.

    8. I don’t think Haas showed anything, it’s more like Ferrari showed that they can co-produce a midfield car in their spare time… None of Caterham, Manor or Hispania was ever able to enjoy such level of support and their fate looks more like a struggle to me than an embarrassment.

      1. @andrewt Maybe HRT but certainly Caterham and Marussia never looked like an embarrassment to me. I often wondered which fool was rich enough to support them nonetheless their determination was great to see. Though in all honestly I could’ve told you in 2010 they would not succeed. When was the last time a fully new team actually achieved something, neither Force India, Red Bull or even Mercedes started from scratch.

        I also agree with you Haas hasn’t proven much. If anything with the support they have been given they should be further up.

        1. @flatsix Agreed. Those teams failure was pretty much determined by not introducing the budget cap, the very thing lured them into F1. The last completley new team showing potential must have been Stewart, that needed three seasons for constant point scoring, a couple of podiums and a lucky win. I wonder how much of that team is still available for Red Bull. But also, Stewart was neither a simple privateer, more like a half-works team of Ford/Cosworth, so I’m not sure how good example they are.

    9. Stroll ‘lucked into’ the Baku podium the same way Hamilton ‘lucked into’ the world championship title, namely, by taking the opportunity when the rival(s) messed up. Stroll was very strong at Baku, just like he was very strong at Monza. There is no denying that his average performance in 2017 was poor. But if he can repeat those stellar performances a couple of times in 2018, then I am happy to see him on the grid – in my opinion, it is better than to have a driver, who is simply average all the time.

      1. @girts Except his podium was due to a whole range of ‘mess ups’,

        -Vettel pushing Hamilton and thus getting the penalty.
        -Hamilton having the headrest issue.
        -Verstappen retiring.
        -Massa retiring.
        -Perez and Ocon colliding.
        -Kimi getting an oil leak.

        1. Luck simply does not exist in F1. Opportunities, you take advantage of, now, that I understand. Stroll was average this year and his qualifying most definitely has to improve. I get the impression he is getting all this whiplash because he is a pay driver. They kid has talent, ish, rich daddy or not, whether that can be unlocked next year in a Williams car unlikely to stay in the mid field for most of the year is another question.

          1. The “luck doesn’t exist” thing is rubbish.
            You might claim luck is not involved on the specific situation you are arguing about (which I would agree with), but for sure it played and still plays big role.

        2. And last but not least, hulk crashed into a wall

          1. @panzik Hulkenberg was behind Stroll when he hit the wall.

      2. His point tally looks quite impressive, and (unfortunately?) points are the measurement in F1 today. It’s ridiculous that Stroll almost ended up in front of Massa based on points, meanwhile their performance difference couldn’t be further than that. Considering every factor, Massa should have been able to score about 80-85 points, meanwhile Stroll about 15-20. At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter if those points were luckily salvaged or duly earned, the only thing that matters that points are scored, and Stroll did score a couple, even though most of it comes from Baku.

        We have seen much worse paydrivers in the near past, and it was only his first season (with an enermous amount of extra testing mid season though), so if he is the key to rescue Williams from its preblematic financial situation, then it’s okay to have him on the grid for at least antoher season, in which he might prove that he really is F1 material, something we cannot be sure about yet.

      3. @girts
        I don’t think you can call his Baku performance ‘stellar’, considering his teammate was ahead of him when he retired. That’s not to say he was poor, he wasn’t far off Massa, but the result flatters him.

    10. That orange colour is dreadful. It looks like something scraped off the pavement.

      Given McLaren’s New Zealand heritage, I suggest a tasteful kiwifruit green.

      1. @ardy, if you want to invoke that heritage, then it would make more sense to go for the original colour scheme that Bruce McLaren wanted to use back in 1966. He originally wanted to have a green and silver livery for the M2B (your comment about “kiwi fruit green” might have been in jest, but wasn’t perhaps as far off as you thought), though ended up accepting a sponsorship deal from the makers of the “Grand Prix” film that saw the car being painted white with a green stripe instead.

        It also took a while for McLaren to move to the “papaya orange”, as the next two cars (the M4B and the M5A) were both predominantly red (red with white highlights for the M4B, and red with a dark blue stripe for the M5A). It wasn’t until 1968 that the first “papaya orange” cars appeared, though that paint scheme wasn’t used for especially long in the history of the team (they dropped it in early 1972).

      2. @ardy Kiwifruit isn’t native to New Zealand, it comes from China and was actually called a Chinese Gooseberry. The kiwifruit name was introduced as a marketing strategy when they started growing it commercially in New Zealand as it was more palatable to remove references to China for the US market.

        1. White.
          Paint it plain white.

      3. I first saw the McLaren Orange M6A at the CanAm event at Bridgehampton in 1967. It was beautiful. But, wandering around the paddock after the race, what I found extremely attractive was the complementary bottle-green windscreen. That made the whole package!

        Interesting – the same event also had a car which I think carried the worst livery ever: the Holman Moody Honker driven by Andretti.

    11. Any team or driver that “brings back” something, should immediately get 20 places grid penalty, +30s stop-and-go penalty. Every race. Ever.

      The most tiresome thing is reading “bring back” this or “bring back” that… It’s all just cheap fan-pandering and memberberries.

    12. In Baku Lance Stroll did make use of luck to get on the podium, However it’s not as if he came from the back to do it as he’d been pretty quick there all weekend.

      He qualified 8th, Ahead of Massa & had been running strongly in the top 10 all race (Apart from during the pit stop cycle) & showing very good pace. Let’s not also ignore that when he ended up towards the front he had the pace to stay there, Not as if he was holing up a train of faster cars or anything & it took Bottas using DRS & all his Battery to jump him for 2nd on the line.

      Perhaps also worth pointing out that if you want to argue that Stroll lucked into the podium then you also need to say that Daniel Ricciardo lucked into the win as he qualified Behind Stroll, Was running behind Stroll all race & were it not for the Red Flag/Final SC may not have been in the position to make the pass on Stroll as when he had been right behind him early in the race he didn’t have the pace to do it.

    13. McLaren cannot get a thing right can they? They had a chance at a Mercedes engine and blew it.

      1. Don’t believe Wolff’s words for a second – Brawn left because he didn’t trust him.
        He speaks with a forked tongue.

    14. McLaren’s ‘historic’ Papaya Orange was raced for what, 3 years?

      Like Williams, their legacy colours are fags and booze.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.