Liberty should take firm stance with F1 teams – Horner

48 comments on “Liberty should take firm stance with F1 teams – Horner”

1. 

   Gabriel (@rethla)
   3rd February 2018, 2:11

   Lauda is both right and wrong. The very facty that there never was to be any “grid boys” is the very reason the practice is removed.
   1. 

      ruliemaulana (@ruliemaulana)
      3rd February 2018, 6:17

      Grid boys were introduced before but the whole grid sports promotor was scrap due to it viewed as a custom that against F1 value.
      Looking forward to other things that against their value like:

      F1 to stop allowing Shoey
      “Custom does not resonate with our hygiene values”

      F1 to stop alcohol sponsor
      “Custom does not resonate with our ‘drive safety’ values”
      1. 

         Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust)
         3rd February 2018, 7:43

         Definitely get rid of the shoey, it’s on the level of a spiteful prank.
         1. 

            Paat
            5th February 2018, 12:09

            And Ricciardo got a mouth fungus because of it, so it’s demonstrably just… wrong XD
      2. 

         David Not Coulthard (@davidnotcoulthard)
         3rd February 2018, 10:26

         F1 to stop alcohol sponsor
         “Custom does not resonate with our ‘drive safety’ values”

         To be fair that would make sense. I mean, we have lost tobacco sponsors for that kind of reason.

         Besides, the important thing is about not getting drunk, even if you take some alcohol. F1 isn’t exactly under FPI control (and even here tape survives despite FPI and alcohol – it totally smells the part imo).
      3. 

         Jay Menon (@jaymenon10)
         3rd February 2018, 11:48

         @ruliemaulana

         The ban on alcohol sponsorship is coming, I’m quite sure of that. After that, they’ll come after gambling. And then, who knows, maybe a ban on petroleum products? In the end, there wont anything left!!
         1. 

            Gabriel (@rethla)
            3rd February 2018, 12:33

            Ban banks while you are at it.
            1. 

               kwacky1 (@kwacky1)
               3rd February 2018, 12:49

               Just ban advertising.
            2. 

               Paat
               5th February 2018, 12:10

               I agree, if you’re gonna ban banks, you really oughta ban advertising in general, because advertising is much more insidious and damaging to society than banks.
         2. 

            Michael Brown (@)
            3rd February 2018, 13:32

            @jaymenon10 I find it odd that alcohol sponsorship is viewed in a similar light to tobacco sponsorship, but not a word is said about sponsorship from home companies, even though driving while texting is extremely dangerous
            1. 

               Michael Brown (@)
               3rd February 2018, 15:21

               *Phone
         3. 

            ruliemaulana (@ruliemaulana)
            3rd February 2018, 13:50

            @jaymenon10 I think they might go for banning gambling but I don’t think they would ban petroleum products. Liberty only banned thing that does not resonate with their sharia value.
      4. 

         Gabriel (@rethla)
         3rd February 2018, 12:32

         @ruliemaulana Grid boys was only introduced as a oneoff gimmick that noone was ever interested in. It only highlighted the problems of grid girls rather than creating some kind of “equality”.
2. 

   Haribo
   3rd February 2018, 2:23

   Grid girls were barely noticable, I don’t even see their removal achieving anything significant. There are many women working in various roles around the sport, shouldn’t F1 perhaps place greater emphasis on promoting the work they do?
   1. 

      Paat
      5th February 2018, 12:12

      It should. And if you want to promote women in the sport, you need to cater to their interests and attitudes. Using women as decoration and promoting a male-gaze-centric aesthetic to the sport is not that.
3. 

   John Toad (@)
   3rd February 2018, 3:32

   I’m agnostic on the grid-girls issue.
   I turn my TV stream on at the start of the parade lap and turn it off when the last car has passed the chequered flag.
   I don’t bother with any of the pre and post race fluff so I won’t notice any difference to my F1 viewing
4. 

   @HoHum (@hohum)
   3rd February 2018, 3:49

   Indycar, hope it works, but of course someone will start moaning about them being 0.1 seconds slower than last year blah blah blah.
5. 

   Stash (@stash)
   3rd February 2018, 4:55

   Maybe if Ricciardo spends less time this year worried about his tan and concentrates on driving he may have a chance. There’s something about Verstappen’s face a really like. :-) Go Verstappen! Kick his butt!
6. 

   Racecar is racecar backwards
   3rd February 2018, 6:21

   The banning of the grid girls is a very superficial way to show that F1 is trying to become more inclusive. Although it helps change perceptions it does little on the practical side to provide paths into F1 for woman. Reading through some of the grid girl’s responses to the ban, one thing kept coming up again and again. The grid girl work was how they got their foot in the door, how they got into racing, became a fan or in some cases became more involved in the teams and even started their driving career. F1 needs to find ways to encourage young girls to get into racing, and if they are closing this door, they need to open up others.
   1. 

      Phylyp (@phylyp)
      3rd February 2018, 8:00

      LOL at your username, never saw that until now!
      1. 

         David Not Coulthard (@davidnotcoulthard)
         3rd February 2018, 10:28

         @phylyp I got reminded of an episode of are you smarter than a 5th grader where a question had to do with racecar being a palindrome
         1. 

            Phylyp (@phylyp)
            3rd February 2018, 10:31

            @davidnotcoulthard – well that just confirms what others and I have always suspected – I am not smarter than a fifth grader (except for the time I was one!)
   2. 

      John H (@john-h)
      3rd February 2018, 8:11

      Then get girls and boys to hold the grid number sticks and inspire the next generation of F1 fans and kart racers of both genders.
      1. 

         Baron
         3rd February 2018, 11:13

         There’s too little a market for grid boys so it’s financially unattractive for businesses to hire them.

         Grid kids is the best solution. Just have children walk up onto the grid holding hands with drivers. At least, so long as the left is fine with it. I don’t know, they might think it promotes child labor.
         1. 

            Gabriel (@rethla)
            3rd February 2018, 12:29

            “Grid kids” are all well but discuss it as a feature on its own legs then and not as a hastly excuse for the grid girl practice.
   3. 

      petebaldwin (@)
      4th February 2018, 13:32

      Named after the Reuben album? If so, exquisite taste!!!!
7. 

   ruliemaulana (@ruliemaulana)
   3rd February 2018, 6:30

   Horner article of F1 as a nation divided makes me think that Liberty is Asterix’s Roman agent provocateur. Would be nice if some old fellow who knew how to make the potion that makes Gauls great made a comeback.
8. 

   MkIndy
   3rd February 2018, 7:27

   So does the Grid Girl ‘Issue’ mean that they will now have to stop showing(objectifying) the women sunbathing/poolside etc during the Monaco GP???
   1. 

      CarWars (@maxv)
      3rd February 2018, 11:19

      They have to be censured..
9. 

   Jere (@jerejj)
   3rd February 2018, 8:06

   It’s still another three years till the first circular anniversary of the events of 2011, though.
10. 

    Lotus49 (@lotus49)
    3rd February 2018, 8:49

    What is Christian Horner’s game plan. Liberty “should adopt a take it or leave it stance with the teams”. He seems to be a big fan of Liberty. If Liberty crack the whip, and Ferrari / Mercedes walk away, where does that leave Red Bull? A the top or a lot nearer to it than they are now. He wouldn’t want that to happen would he?
    1. 

       anon
       3rd February 2018, 9:58

       @lotus49, Horner probably believes that, right now, the attitude that Liberty Media are taking – particularly their proposal for the heavy standardisation of the engines that would effectively remove them as a performance differentiator – and their political stance is one that could be exploited to significantly shift the technical regulations back into Red Bull’s favour, whilst simultaneously robbing their rivals of most of their political power.

       It is a short term opportunistic move by Horner – as you say, sooner or later Liberty will probably make a decision that would be against his interests, but Horner is probably taking the attitude that he’ll deal with that when it comes and simply try to make as many gains in the shorter term as he can.
       1. 

          socksolid (@socksolid)
          3rd February 2018, 12:24

          We are not really talking about short term here when we talk about the next engines.

          And of course every team is trying to get the tech regulations to fit themselves. While christian definitely has his own agendas a strong liberty/fia would be better for f1 than the current manufacturer led expense competition. Maybe not best for mercedes and ferrari but clearly better for literally everybody else on the grid.

          It would be nice to get some sense into the engine farce that has been going on since 2014. The engine regs that were pushed by the engine manufacturers have failed massively at every single aspect of f1 racing. Sound, cost, weight, competition, equality, racing, complexity, driver challenge, speed… Dear god someone changes the rules so more teams can race for wins and podiums… imagine what kind of failure that would be :S
          1. 

             anon
             3rd February 2018, 13:23

             @socksolid, and yet all of your proposals have come across as rather regressive in nature and fail to address the criteria that you complain about in what comes across as a deeply self destructive attitude.

             If you were really genuinely as altruistic as you claim you are and wanted to significantly reduce costs, then by rights you should be complaining about the cost of aerodynamic development given that, for a midfield team such as Sauber, the cost of aerodynamic development made up, as a proportion of the budget, four times that of engine costs – that is the real killer in terms of costs in F1, but given that you’ve posted in the past about wanting to relax rules in that area and expand aero, it seems that your attitude would only aggravate those problems even more.
             1. 

                socksolid (@socksolid)
                3rd February 2018, 14:37

                F1 has always been about aerodynamics. The cost of aero is not a problem in f1. Plus f1 already has taken measures against it.

                You also on purposely invent stories what I’ve said in the past. It is useless talking to someone so dishonest.
             2. 

                anon
                4th February 2018, 9:32

                @socksolid, I see that you seem more interested in ad hominen attacks – besides, as many would say, F1 is a sport where there has always been a combination of different mechanical factors. Aerodynamics is an important factor, but few would say that it was “always about aerodynamics”, ascribing it more to a mixture of different technological advances.

                As for your claim that the cost of aerodynamics is not a problem, I doubt that there will be many people on this forum who believe your claim there – do you really believe that the current amount of spending on aerodynamics that the teams do per season, which is far greater than the spending on engines that you complain about, is not ultimately damaging to the sport in the long term?
    2. 

       petebaldwin (@)
       4th February 2018, 13:36

       @lotus49 I rarely agree with Horner but his suggestion that F1 should be run as…. well…. as a sport, seems a good idea to me.

       If a football team said we’ll quit unless you give us 2 goals every time we score, I imagine they’d be sent packing.
11. 

    Patrickl (@patrickl)
    3rd February 2018, 9:10

    Lol the irony of Horner saying that is just mind boggling.
    1. 

       petebaldwin (@)
       4th February 2018, 13:38

       That’s how F1 is at the moment. They have to fight for every political advantage they can get.

       Horner is saying they shouldn’t have to. Whoever is in charge should set the rules and the teams should follow them.
    2. 

       BasCB (@bascb)
       4th February 2018, 13:43

       Sometimes one does have to wonder about those kind of things, right. Last week we had Marko saying that McLaren complaining ruined their relationship with their engine partner, now we have Horner saying fOM/FIA should be tough on teams with the rules
12. 

    Antoon van Gemert
    3rd February 2018, 9:39

    Niki Lauda and Bernie Ecclestone are great characters, not infected yet (ever seen ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers”?) by the evil disease called ‘politcal correctness’ and therefore free to speak what ever they want to say. Wish we had more of those characters in F1, because on the topic regarding ‘grid girls’ the utterly silence till now from F1-teams and F1-drivers is very disturbing.
    1. 

       anon
       3rd February 2018, 11:28

       So, presumably, you are also relaxed with the anti-Semitic remarks that Bernie has also made in the past? Or that it is acceptable to bribe and defraud people? If you think that an individual who has engaged in outright criminal behaviour is a “great character” and that it is just merely “political correctness” to obey such trivial things as the rule of law, then you have a quite twisted view of the world.
       1. 

          Michael Brown (@)
          3rd February 2018, 15:26

          It is even more twisted to conflate all of those things together for your fallacious argument, anon.
          1. 

             anon
             4th February 2018, 9:48

             @mbr-9, no, I disagree with you there – when Bernie has “spoken his mind” in the past, there have been a number of instances where it has been to express opinions that many here would find abhorrent. Antoon van Gemert wants to pick and choose the comments that Bernie makes to present him as a “great guy” and lionises him for going against the “evil disease” that he calls “political correctness” because he is saying something that helps reinforce the opinion that he’s already come to.
13. 

    juan fanger (@juan-fanger)
    3rd February 2018, 10:43

    Horacio – If you loose grip too much you’ll let go.

    title (source)

    “excerpt”
14. 

    socksolid (@socksolid)
    3rd February 2018, 12:44

    I liked the tidbit in the Andy Stevenson interview about the thickness of the rulebook. Lots of people say there are too many rules but andy makes some very good points why that is why it needs to be so. The teams want rules clarified. Any time a rule is clarified you need to add words. And the rulebook just like any book is certainly complex if you just dive into it expecting to find clear cut answers on the first page. All the stuff that is there is imho useful but the rulebook is not made for viewers but for the teams and fia.

    I’ve never got the obsession about having too many rules. All the rules have a reason to be there. Every technical rule that is removed will bring back something that was banned for good reason. Clear definitions are good and even if they are somewhat wordy all that stuff is imho necessary. There is a lot of thought that goes into writing that stuff and it is not possible to just remove it and pretend the same old issues would not come back again.

    Back in the day the rulebook could be 5 pages long because people did not have hundreds of engineers reading the book and then running months of computer simulations and multiple parallel developments to figure out the best solutions. The more technology advances the more detailed rules are needed just because the more you know the more you define.
15. 

    Michael Brown (@)
    3rd February 2018, 15:30

    I agree with Horner that Liberty needs to take a firm stance with teams, but would he go back on those words if that means a disadvantage for Red Bull? I doubt any team principal would want that to happen to their own team.
    1. 

       Robbie (@robbie)
       4th February 2018, 15:28

       I think the idea going forward, from what Brawn has been saying, is that whatever shape the next era of F1 takes the idea will be to try to get away from one team dominating or having their way over the others. Closer racing and teams closer to each other with better balance and money distribution across the grid.

       So I do understand that different teams will have their own agendas. That’s natural and Brawn has said so too. He’s well aware of what each teams agenda would be…he could probably tell them what their agendas are just by knowing them and observing them as we all have. But that does not mean it is still the F1 of the BE era where certain teams will get their way over others in a significant way. Ultimately I think Horner is right and I see Brawn and his team deliberating with the teams in a professional manner, hearing all sides and weighing the pros and cons of new ideas, and then they will decree the new direction for F1 post-2020.

       And as Brawn has said Mercedes and Ferrari are not far apart from each other nor from what Liberty/Brawn has been talking about, so I’m sure they will come up with some good solutions to head themselves to a better series overall. Horner seems fine with that too.

Comments are closed.