Lando Norris, McLaren, Albert Park, 2019

McLaren back Renault’s call for clampdown on ‘B-teams’

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown says his team supports engine supplier Renault’s stance on B-teams, following Cyril Abiteboul’s comments on Toro Rosso during the Australian Grand Prix weekend.

What they say

McLaren is aligned with Renault’s view on the future direction of the sport. That is, I think we need a level playing field, not just for McLaren, but for the entire grid.

That means fair revenue distribution. I don’t think it has to be equal revenue distribution but fair.

I think a realistic budget cap, one that a lot of teams can get to through prize money, FOM money and sponsorship.

Formula 1’s DNA has always been being a constructor. So I think equipment should either be listed parts – and that’s what makes you a constructor – or standard parts if we want to help teams that maybe don’t have capabilities to make listed parts. But what I don’t think you should have are some teams supplying other teams but not all teams. I think that would make for a truer Formula 1, truer constructors. better for everyone.

The governance of the sport needs to be addressed because a lot of the rules and regulation you try to get through get aggravated by teams aligning.

So I think the teams need to have a say and a vote but not to such an extent that we can stop things from happening and I think that’s ultimately what the fans want. And I think like great sports it should be different winners more frequently, different champions and I think then we all win.

Quotes: Dieter Rencken

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Comment of the day

Can incremental change fix F1’s problems – or do we need a revolution?

To me, the current agreements in F1 between the commercial rights holders, tracks, teams, sponsors, etc are not sustainable. Unfortunately they also seem to be intractable.

I’m skeptical changes in administration or racing can help because the market isn’t there. Maybe revenue could grow some, but it won’t offset the profit taking or racing costs.

I don’t see anyway to make the serious changes except for a catastrophic event like bankruptcy or a switch to another series.
RP (@Slotopen)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Justin!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

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 RaceFans Round-upTags

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

  • 50 comments on “McLaren back Renault’s call for clampdown on ‘B-teams’”

    1. Unfortunately I have to agree with @slotopen ‘s COTD, I would like to be able to hope for a miracle but the most optimistic thought I can come up with for Liberty is, that by owning the name F1, whatever F1 morphs into it won’t have to compete with F1.

      1. Just what I was thinking reading some of those McClaren comments. Feels a bit like the ‘B’ word, people know there needs to be a change, they just can’t decide what that change should be. Let’s give it to Mrs May to work it out..!

    2. And again ‘What they say’ are old quotes which were reported on various media (incl. BBC) 2 days ago.
      Why have old news in a daily round-up?
      And please include where this was said if it is really first-hand info. Now it might look like you copied it from other sites, and could/should have been included in the ‘links’ section (of yesterday) :(

      1. If the quotes are written as from Dieter I’d imagine they come from some sort of press event/release/interview. There’s a lot of quotes from that feature which get repeated elsewhere either before or after, and some completely unique ones. I can only imagine sometimes they have a lot to potentially feature and other days they fill in the gaps with what they didn’t have room for the days before.

        I have faith that it’s not stolen any way, I really doubt Dieter got to where he is by doing such or risks his relationships with his colleagues by doing it now. But hey, what do I know at the end of the day.

        1. I have faith that it’s not stolen any way,

          Exactly what I think, @skipgamer.
          Just leave ‘What they say’ out of the daily round-up when there are no fresh quotes.
          It seems that the round-up wants to grow-up and become a journalistic article; whilst it should stay what it’s good at: a well curated daily news aggregator.

          1. @coldfly You seem to think the only thing which matters in publishing is newness. Of course it’s important, but it’s not the only thing that matters, at least not to us.

            If something’s significant we may cover it irrespective of whether others who had access to the same original material (i.e. not copied it from a rival website, as you accuse of doing having apparently ignored the clear sourcing underneath the quote in question) have done.

            The logical end-point of your argument is that we should publish everything immediately while also devoting huge resources to reading every piece of information all our rivals publish. I would have thought it self-evident how unrealistic this is.

            The same goes for your suggestion we should devote more space to promoting our rivals’ content when we already do far more of this than most of them. I note the BBC have recently dropped their equivalent, which is a mixed blessing, as while they occasionally credited us for our stories they also repeatedly credited other websites when they copied our stories, even if those sites cited and linked us.

            1. I must say I’m a bit disappointed about your reply @keithcollantine.
              ‘You seem to think’ that all critical feedback is negative and attacking you. Sometimes, especially in this case, it is meant to point you at certain things which could be improved; and should be seen as constructive criticism/feedback.

              Yes indeed, I expect ‘newness’ to be a key ingredient in a daily round-up. If you disagree you might want to change the name. I am still expecting this to be my ‘daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more from hundreds of sites across the web’.
              But it is not the ‘only’ thing I’m looking for (not even sure where you got that flawed idea). I very much appreciate that you curate the entries. But I still expect it to be ‘fresh’.

              copied it from a rival website, as you accuse of doing

              Keith, Keith, Keith, I never ever accused you of doing so. Please, read my comments again; you’ll find I do quite the opposite.
              The ‘clear sourcing’ could be a lot clearer though. I’ve mentioned this before; when you only mention the name of the person who heard the quote and don’t include how/where they picked it up, you leave yourself open to people thinking what you accused me of (copying of other websites). Especially, when these quotes are published days earlier on those other sites.

              we should publish everything immediately

              You’re the one who claimed to have a ‘daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more from hundreds of sites across the web’. Maybe it is time to tell your readers that this is no longer the case.

              The same goes for your suggestion we should devote more space to promoting our rivals’ content when we already do far more of this than most of them.

              Might be just me, but I think you gain credibility over your ‘rivals’ if you include links to them in your daily round-up. I can only speak for myself, but as long as you cover them on a daily basis (round-up), then I do not have to go to their sites. And in the end, you’ll win dedicated followers. But that might just be me.

              I’ve seen other sites crediting you more and more; which is a good thing. The bad thing is that I had to go to those other sites as I feel more and more that I don’t get the full story in the racefans.net round-up.

              Just to summarise my positive criticism: keep the ‘daily round-up’ as what it was: a daily review of all the newsworthy F1 stories from around the web and social media.
              All your other articles can be journalistic quality pieces (as they mostly are).
              I strongly believe that this will attract many F1 fans (your news stories) and keep them from going to your rivals (the round-up).
              But this might just be me; maybe all other readers are happy with your current choices regarding the round-up.

      2. But what about the visitors who come to this site that do not frequent other F1 sites and are in the US so no BBC coverage?

        1. No access to BBC website in the US?
          Maybe you should do like other restrictive web countries and use a good VPN ;)

          1. No access to BBC website at work. Same for CBS, NBC, CNN, etc.

            RaceFans, however, is not blocked.

    3. Hilarious DiGrassi is talking about being moved into when he was bumping into cars left and right. Everyone was. I like Formula E but wowie was it straight bumper cars out there.

    4. Why the 2019 Chinese Grand Prix won’t be the 1,000th Formula 1 race (RaceFans via YouTube)

      I looked into the Indianapolis 500 GP from 1950 to 1959. As far as I can tell, there was only one driver who competed in the Indianapolis 500 and any of the other F1 rounds in the same season in that entire decade, and that was Alberto Ascari. As far as I could tell there wasn’t any other driver who did that.
      Still, those races were each called an “F1” race, so I guess the question is were there “F1” races that we don’t recognise as F1 races? As far as I can tell there weren’t any F1 or Formula A or Formula I races prior to 1950.

      1. BlackJackFan
        27th March 2019, 1:58

        Check the video link.

      2. I presume that the FIA’s 1000 race count doesn’t include the 1981 South African Grand Prix that was changed to Formula Libra rules due to the FISA / FOCA feud?

        Also, i wonder what would have been the 1000th F1 race if we included all non championship races, not just ones counting towards the world championship?

        1. I wonder if they count Abu Dhabi 2014 double ;)
          @eurobrun

          1. Haha. Excellent @coldfly
            Conversely does 2009 Malaysian Grand Prix (and others) count as a full race?

      3. @drycrust, the Indianapolis 500 races between 1950 and 1959 were Grand Prix, sometimes also called Grandes Épreuves, events.

        They were not “F1” races as they ran to very different regulations, but it was decided that, because the Indianapolis 500 held a status equivalent to a Grand Prix event in the pre-WW2 era, it was worthy of inclusion in the World Drivers Championship.

        It is worth noting that it is only since 1981 that the Formula 1 World Championship officially came into existence and replaced what had been the World Drivers Championship. Until 1981, the races which counted towards the World Drivers Championship did not have to operate to Formula 1 regulations.

        It depended entirely on which Grand Prix events the FIA decided were worthy of being designated as counting towards the World Drivers Championship – they usually chose Formula 1 events because the cars had the highest performance and tended to race at the most prestigious Grand Prix, but that wasn’t always the case.

        In 1952 and 1953, the Grand Prix that counted towards the World Drivers Championship were all held to Formula 2 regulations, not Formula 1 regulations – it is why some would argue that it is wrong to count them towards the total number of “official” Formula 1 races.

        That is because the FIA never formally repealed the Formula 1 regulations, so whilst the World Drivers Championsip events ran to Formula 2 regulations, there were a number of non-championship races which continued to run to Formula 1 regulations throughout those years.

        The Glover Trophy is probably one of the better known events, thanks to the Goodwood Revival, but there were others – the Grand Prix d’Albi, the Ulster Grand Prix, the Gran Premio di Siracusa and the BRDC International Trophy are just a few examples of non-championship Formula 1 races. The Glover Trophy, if I understand correctly, was still technically a Formula 1 event in 1952 and 1953 – for example, the winner of the 1952 event was José Froilán González in a Ferrari 375.

        In fact, from the 1950s right through into the late 1970s, it was very common for circuits which were aspiring to hold an official Grand Prix to hold a non-championship event a year before entering the calendar as a way of proving that they could hold an official race. Austria, Mexico and Argentina are just some of the nations that held non-championship Grand Prix that operated in accordance with Formula 1 regulations the year before they were officially designated as counting towards the World Drivers Championship.

        Technically, between 1961 and 1965 Formula 1 races effectively downgraded to Formula 2 as well. In that instance, the shift was more subtle as the FIA did change the regulations so that Formula 1 adopted the same regulations as Formula 2 had been using prior to 1961 (with a similar process happening for Formula 2 cars), but there were some non-championship races, such as the 1961 Lombank Trophy, which was technically operating to Formula 1 regulations, but allowed 1960 and 1961 spec Formula 1 cars to compete against each other.

        Apart from the non-championship Formula 1 races, there were in fact entire Formula 1 championships that operated independently from the World Drivers Championship. From 1960 to 1975, there was a South African Formula One Championship – that series tended to use old Formula 1 cars that had recently been retired from the World Drivers Championship and, from the late 1960s onwards, tended to combine Formula 1 and Formula 5000 cars in the same races, though still called itself a Formula 1 series.

        There was also a slightly shorter lived British Formula 1 championship, which lasted from 1978 to 1982. That series technically styled itself as a Formula Libre series and allowed a mixed grid of Formula 1 and Formula 2 cars to compete, and again it styled itself as a Formula 1 championship.

        It is why Desiré Wilson is sometimes described as the first woman to win a Formula 1 race, as she took part in the 1980 British Formula 1 championship and won the second round at Brands Hatch.

        In summary, there have been a lot of unofficial Formula 1 races in the past, and even entire parallel Formula 1 championships.

        @eurobrun, since you ask, it looks like the 1981 South African Grand Prix is not included in that total of 1000 races – they are only including the races which officially counted towards the World Drivers Championship.

        As to your other question, StatsF1 lists another 289 non-championship Grand Prix, although that list is perhaps debatable – asides from debates about how valid some of those races might be, you could also point out that it doesn’t include the races in the South African or British Formula 1 championships.

        1. Thanks Anon for explaining that, no one seemed to explain why there was any ambiguity, but now I realise there’s lots of ambiguity.
          My thinking was teams pay to compete in a “Formula 1” racing series, so regardless of what the actual rules were, if a team paid to race in a Formula 1 race then it is a Formula 1 race (I’m ignoring local school, charity, etc pretend type “Formula 1” races). The existence of other “Formula 1” racing series’ and races does muddy the waters a lot. I guess those teams knew they weren’t racing in an FIA Formula 1 race. What about a race was an FIA Formula 1 race that didn’t award points that counted towards the WDC? Maybe that should be counted.
          I had wondered why the points winner of an F1 season was called “The World Drivers’ Champion” and not “The F1 Drivers’ Champion”, and so it seems this is because at one time drivers in other racing series could compete for the title of WDC even though today there’s no mention of any other racing series in the points table.
          So it seems the current thinking is to count races from 1950 to 1981 where points counted towards the WDC, and from then FIA F1 races. As I think about this, there are several other ways to determine what should and shouldn’t be counted: e.g. it should be FIA F1 races (regardless of the actual rules used) or FIA F1 races (again, ignoring the actual rules used) and F1 rules races.
          Anyway, someone has decided the Chinese GP is the 1000th GP. I wouldn’t be surprised if marketing people had a part in that decision. If China wants it to be the 1000th GP then I’m not going to argue. I guess next year or some other time some other marketing people will decide they want Monaco or the British GP or the US GP to be the “True 1000th F1 GP”, and maybe in 2050 there will be the “100 years of F1 racing” celebrations, but that’s a long way ahead.

        2. georgeboole (@)
          27th March 2019, 20:52

          Sometimes I feel like Keith or Dieter are too bored to log in and comment as anon.

          1. Yes, you do have to wonder who “anon” is. I wouldn’t be surprised if they have a login so they can avoid having to watch all the adverts.

          2. @georgeboole, whilst flattered at the comparison, I am neither Keith not Dieter – I am just an enthusiastic fan of the sport (although I will concede that I have occasionally written articles for other fan sites).

            @drycrust, it is a complex picture because “Grand Prix” races were organised and eventually codified into organised events before the advent of any form of organised championship. There was a European Drivers Championship organised by the AIACR from 1931 to 1939, although for the first few years the races all ran to “Formula Libre” regulations: it wasn’t until 1934 that you had a codified championship for Grand Prix racing cars.

            When the regulations for Formula 1 were therefore written in the post WW2 era, it was more of a case of Formula 1 fitting itself to the existing format of Grand Prix racing. The term “Formula 1” was first used in 1946 as a new name for the proposed “International Formula” that would take over from the pre-WW2 Grand Prix regulations, though at that point there wasn’t an organised championship.

            To begin with, the regulations for the new “Formula 1” series were basically the same as the pre-WW2 Grand Prix regulations, and in many ways it really was just a continuation of the pre-WW2 championships. You therefore had Grand Prix between 1947 and 1949 that were a combination of “Formula 1” and pre-WW2 “Grand Prix” regulations – effectively “Formula Libre” – but no form of organised championship towards which they counted.

            It’s only in 1950 that you have an organised championship, but that was effectively an ad-hoc response to the fact that FIM – the governing body for motorcycle racing – created their World Championship for Grand Prix Road Races, which we know today as MotoGP, back in 1949.

            It was therefore a case of the FIA cobbling together a number of races of similar status together into what they could call a World Drivers Championship in something of an afterthought. Quite often, the individual races held just as much, if not more, prestige than winning the World Drivers Championship – the French Grand Prix was a good example of that, as it was the oldest Grand Prix event at the time (going back to 1906) and the prize fund for winning that race was probably the most generous one on offer out of all Grand Prix at the time.

            Even now, it is a case of “Grand Prix to Formula 1 regulations”, as technically the two are distinct. It is why you still have a number of races which are called a Grand Prix, even though they operate to entirely different regulations – some of the better known examples are the Macau Grand Prix, which these days runs to Formula 3 regulations (but originally was a Grand Prix sportscar race), and the Pau Grand Prix, again running to Formula 3 regulations these days, still retain that historic status of being a Grand Prix even though they are not Formula 1 events.

            I believe that FOM have acknowledged that there is a difference between the 1000th Grand Prix event and the 1000th Formula 1 race, although even now there is still some confusion over what exactly would be the 1000th Formula 1 race, even if you just stick to what are normally recognised as championship events (as Keith notes, one example is whether or not to count the 1952 and 1953 seasons towards the total – some do and some don’t).

            It gets a lot more confusing if you do then start looking at adding in other series or events that ran to Formula 1 regulations. For example, with the South African Formula 1 championship, whilst those races did not count towards the World Drivers Championship, they were races that were termed as Formula 1 races that were organised by a national body that was affiliated with, and operating with the permission of, the FIA, although not being directly organised by the FIA.

            To be honest, the process of trying to decipher what unofficial races could be classified as Formula 1 races is a mess that I think very few people want to try and dig into, especially since the exact status of a lot of those races is somewhat uncertain. I don’t blame them for sticking to the official races in that sense, as even that alone is tricky enough.

            As an aside, with regards to the point you make about “one time drivers in other racing series could compete for the title of WDC even though today there’s no mention of any other racing series in the points table.”. It is in fact the case that most tables for the seasons between 1950 and 1960 do include those who took part in the Indianapolis 500 – for example, if you look for the results of the 1950 World Drivers Championship, you will find Johnnie Parsons, the winner of the 1950 Indianapolis 500, listed in 6th place in the World Drivers Championship.

      4. @drycrust Off the top of my head Farina and Fangio did too.

        1. @keithcollantine I guess I’d have to say you were half right because both Farina and Fangio were classified as Did Not Qualify, meaning they did attend the GP but didn’t actually race. According to Wikipedia Farina didn’t qualify for the 1956 Indy 500 because of rain.

    5. Whilst I can understand the point about B teams, the fact is that they are adding some interest to the racing and overall health of F1.

      Let’s face it those teams that have remained fiercely independent have either failed or are languishing well off the pace and will probably continue to do so unless the “new” regulations provide for an easier, more sustainable path for teams to be “independent”

      Without that, forcing teams like Haas, Alfa Romeo and Torro Rosso to drop their current model could just result in their deciding to withdraw, something I’m sure we’d all hate to see.

      1. B Teams are nearly 100% of the cause and affect of privateers languishing behind.

      2. Three teams with huge resources and budgets far in excess of what the next in line can muster that will dominate the sport. B teams that will be perpetually a year behind their parent team taking prize money away from the independents. It’s a false economy that will only strengthen the grip the three top teams have on the sport. Renault and McLaren aren’t hoping to destroy the sport or even lessen the racing, in-fact they’re hoping to create a more level playing field where there is actual hope that more than one of three teams will be on the front row of the grid or at the top of the podium.

        1. I agreed @Ross.

          The rise of B-teams appears to be creating closer racing with the likes of Haas, Racing Point, Torro Rosso all doing well and Alfa being substantially more competitive than an independent Sauber had been for years.

          But it’s a false picture as it simply strengthens the grip of the top three over the rest and plasters over the true competitive order which is:

          the big three
          big gap
          Renault, McLaren
          bigger gap
          Williams

          We can criticise and mock William’s current predicament all we like, but it is a true representation of the competitive order in F1 under it’s current financial structure.

        2. I’ve got no problem with B teams as long as all the semi-standardised parts are available to all other teams at the same price.
          This is actually step one of the cost saving model as proposed by F1 from 2021. As long as all real differentiating parts remain unique (own IP) for each team.

          The only problem I have with B teams is that they become a selective road block during a race. Interestingly, this seems to be more due to the contracted academy driver (e.g. Leclerc and Ocon last year) than the team (e.g. STR vs RBR in Melbourne)

      3. I disagree. I think they are having a detrimental effect. We see teams like Williams not being able to compete as they are competing against teams that can plough a lot more money into certain aspects of their cars as they are not having to spend money on other parts because they are given parts which are already very good by their parent teams. Also it means that Ferrari for instance could benefit from aero work done by Alfa and Haas and so effectively gain wind tunnel time that is not available to Mercedes or Mclaren. As long as Haas and Alfa break even they pretty much give Ferrari more restricted resources for free.

    6. But what I don’t think you should have are some teams supplying other teams but not all teams. I think that would make for a truer Formula 1, truer constructors. better for everyone.

      He’s just crying, “Waaah, Ferrari or Mercedes wont give us their non-listed parts, waaah!” It’s not better for everyone, certainly not better for HAAS or Force India. Nothing is stopping any teams from making any deals they want to. It’s just because they can’t or don’t want to make the same deals.

      Obviously some form of standardised points are coming, but I just wanted to make that point. Having more standard parts isn’t “better for everyone” it’s just reducing the number of opportunities for teams to gain competitive advantages on each other.

      One area of F1 that will never be removed as an opportunity for competitive advantage is the engine. That’s exactly what will never change (at least according to Binotto from last year) and also where the very same process of not all teams having the same access Brown describes takes place.

      Maybe he should just switch to indycar…

      1. You either completely fail to understand the point, or you’re fine with the sports evolving to there being as few constructor teams as their are engine suppliers.

        1. The point is that the biggest car manufacturer’s team (the Yellow one), a team with a healthy pile of arab money (the Orange one) and a team with more than enough human and technical resouces (the one with lady in charge) can’t built a car faster than some 100 people can do with some outsource parts.

          It looks like some people have a misunderstanding about so-called “B-teams” that some team bosses trying to exploit.
          Ferrari doesn’t design and built Haas and Alfa cars. Dallara and Sauber does. And it’s not Haas’ problem that Dallara makes better chassis than Renault.
          Mercedes doesn’t design and build RP’s car, nor share a budget with them, they sell them engines and gearboxes. RP make their chassis of unique design themselves. And with the smallest budget (at least when it was called Force India) they can actually make a good chassis, instead of just blabbing about how the chassis is good, Zak.
          Toro Rosso is the most “B”-ish of these “B-teams” – it’s really owned by Red Bull, but they also design their car themselves, yep Claire, gearbox too (at least until this year).
          Of course there is technical backing to some degree but then, Cyril, Zak and Claire, you should call a spade a spade. If you have 800 employees and your own aerodynamic tunnel, yet cannot figure out how the air should flow around a car, or if you don’t know where exactly the front wheels should be located, admit that with all your heritage and resources you don’t have enough technical background to be competetive now. Because even if you’d get twice as much money from revenues right now, with this kind of approach to management, you wouldn’t be at the front. I’m completely with you for a more fair money distribution, but you really should stop blaming anything and anyone for your setbacks, except yourselves.

          1. Well said Tim (please register).
            Although, I still would like to see that all teams can buy the same non-listed parts at the same price from Hannibal, Faceman, B.A. or Murdock, even if that other team is a big car manufacturer with foreign money and woman at the helm.

          2. I think there’s more of us out there agreeing with your comments Tim.
            Hamilton makes a point also with engines. Let’s go back to unlimited cylinders. Make some noise and spectacle. Work out ways of limiting noxious emissions too. Should be all capable with the engine manufacturers.

          3. Awesome, well said.

          4. Tim, in the past, Force India did in fact share a budget with Mercedes – when Force India first signed a contract with Mercedes for engines and gearboxes, they also signed a joint research agreement where they would share funding and provide researchers for ongoing joint research into new transmission designs, along with founding a new materials science joint research centre.

            Also, Toro Rosso only designed their own gearbox casing, not their own gearbox – Tost confirmed back in 2017 that “we have already the gearbox internals and the hydraulics system and other parts from Red Bull”, and that Toro Rosso only designed the outer case.

            They are now using the same outer casing because they are also using the same rear suspension components – since that fixes the position of the rear suspension mounting points, and since those are connected to the gearbox casing, it’s a lot easier for Toro Rosso to just use the same casing as well.

    7. i think this is the first time i agree with Zak Brown… interesting…

    8. Regarding the YT-video: It was already covered earlier this year why the Chinese GP won’t be that and that the actual 1000th F1 race will/is going to be the 8th round of 2020.

      I agree with the COTD.

      Alonso’s tweet, though.

      1. Now I have to listen to the ‘beyond the grid’ podcast (maybe 75min of my time lost).

        1. was actually quite interesting, @jerejj.

    9. As usual with F1, they’ve got the whole thing upside down. Let the smaller teams do more testing and wind tunnel work. Then they can sell parts to the bigger teams. That would go a long way in levelling the field.

      As things currently stand, no team can afford to take development risks, because if the risk doesn’t pay off, there’s no way to catch up. Give the smaller teams that chance and they don’t have to try to do the same as the big teams but on a smaller budget. They’ll get to try a different route, offering a chance of coming out ahead.

    10. Hamilton’s right and those V10’s and V12’s should come back.

    11. Surprised no comments on the AuS 2021 render…

      Looks pretty ugly but;
      1. If it really does lose only 30% aero efficiency when following as opposed to the current 80% I am all in.
      2. I saw the original ‘leaked’ image and I think the artist has just done an exceptionally bad job colouring it in.

      1. 3. Still far too long for an F1 car!

    12. I have absolutely no problem with F1 manufacturers selling parts to smaller teams as the regulations currently allow. I agree that it would be a good thing if those parts were available to all teams. Would Renault and McLaren install a Ferrari front suspension on their cars if they could? That would tarnish their claim to being “true” constructors, wouldn’t it? Both Renault and McLaren have the money and supposedly the expertise to build competitive F1 cars. If they are being consistently beaten by teams like HaasF1, they need to take a good hard look in the mirror not point fingers at a team that is competing under the same regulations and getting superior results.

    13. On the B teams issue, maybe if the parent company HAD to provide the same parts as provided to the B team, at the same cost, to other teams…. Maybe not to ALL teams that want the parts, but to an additonal 2 or three teams??

    14. “Formula 1’s DNA has always been being a constructor.” I guess that means all the privateers in the 50s and 60s were never really part of F1.

    15. I think the only reason renault is against b-teams is because it can not afford it. Ferrari and merc (and red bull) have bigger budgets for everything (car, engine and secondary team) and renault doesn’t. Renault have been pretty open about hoping that the future budgets drop down to their level and not that they’d have to spend more to get to ferrari’s, merc’s and red bull’s level. For mclaren it is just straight up survival thing though. If 6-7 teams out of 10 teams are a-teams and b-teams then what’s the point “competing” as a c-team?

      1. As Renault/Nissan is contemplating buying FIAT, they might very well get a B-team as part of that deal ;)
        @socksolid

    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'.