Kimi Raikkonen, Alfa Romeo, Bahrain International Circuit, 2019

Raikkonen has “zero interest” in breaking Barrichello’s starts record

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Kimi Raikkonen says he isn’t interested in breaking the record for starting the most grands prix, which he is on course to do in the 2020 F1 season.

What they say

Raikkonen is set to surpass Rubens Barrichello’s record for most F1 starts in the ninth race of next season, which should be his 321st race:

I’ve never been chasing any number. In the end it’s just a number. If it’s 20 thousand it makes no difference. At least, I don’t look at how many races or this or that. I do it because I feel it’s what I want to do and when I don’t feel, I stop.

It’s absolutely zero interest on the number side. If it’s 10 less than somebody else or 10 more, that doesn’t dictate at all what I will do. When the feeling changes I will go and do something else but that’s how it’s going to go.

Quotes: Dieter Rencken

Snapshot

Anthoine Hubert, Renault, Eurodisney, 2019
Anthoine Hubert, Renault, Eurodisney, 2019

Anthoine Hubert drove a Renault F1 car around Disneyland Paris last weekend as part of a promotional event for the French Grand Prix.

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

The ‘B team’ debate isn’t going away:

I think Haas sets a terrible precedent for the sport. It was only a matter of time before other midfield teams realise that it’s not economically efficient enough to invest in R&D, design and manufacturing of your own car or car parts. As long as there are teams like Haas on the grid, the midfield teams would always feel the pressure to go down the route of a B team.

Sad to see Force India go this route. If Liberty doesn’t fix this asap, F1 will be a farce even before we get to 2021.
@Todfod

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Mad Eric, Slr, Dirgegirl and Traverse!

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

  • 54 comments on “Raikkonen has “zero interest” in breaking Barrichello’s starts record”

    1. Kimi is a one off.
      Long may he stay in F1, would be dire without him.

      1. I don’t really see what difference it would make if he wasn’t there?

        1. Many fans would lose their purpose in life ;)

          1. Count me in.

          2. @coldfly I didn’t, when he was away from the series for two seasons at the beginning of the decade, LOL.

      2. It wouldn’t exactly be dire I don’t think, but I do feel that F1 needs him and more like him.
        Less backside kissers and PR drama queens and few more individuals like Kimi would help the sports profile immensely I feel.

    2. Where we really expecting a different answer from Kimi?

      1. “……yes yes I know numbers, the small ones at the beginning, the big ones near the end….”

        1. @jjohn

          B(WOAH)rilliant

      2. georgeboole (@)
        9th April 2019, 13:15

        That was exactly as expected. We just need a bwoah video to back it up

    3. I agree in principle with your COTD @todfod , but I don’t understand what the RP’s agreement to use the Merc wind tunnel has to do with it? They’re still doing their own thing, aren’t they? Teams were using other teams wind tunnels for decades like the Toyota wind tunnel. It’s not like they’re testing stuff for Merc. They’re simply renting the real estate that’s all. From what I know, the old Jordan wind tunnel is extremely old and impossible to update and building a new one costs hundreds of millions. I see zero wrong in using other team’s wind tunnel as long as they’re doing their own thing…

      1. @montreal95

        I actually don’t have a problem with a team using another team’s wind tunnel. It isn’t easy to afford a private wind tunnel, and I understand when smaller teams use a bigger team’s wind tunnel. What I don’t like is how unregulated the sharing of information is between these teams. We don’t know what data was exchanged between Ferrari and Haas in this relationship but ironically, Haas used Ferrari’s wind tunnel, and surprisingly, Dallara designed a 2018 Haas car that was identical to Ferrari’s 2017 challenger. Unless there’s a whistleblower among the Ferrari and Haas staff, there’s no way we’ll ever know the full extent of their partnership. So, I do feel that the more dependent a midfield team is on a manufacturer team, the more dubious the relationship will get.

        Why I feel it sets a dangerous precedent is because Haas will now be Ferrari’s partner both on track and off track. They can be used as a pawn during races to favour Ferrari, as well as be a political partner off track to push Ferrari’s agenda.

        1. @todfod I agree 100%. But the RP situation is different. they don’t have an agreement for listed oarts with Mercedes. Even though the situation is unregulated it’s nigh on impossible to replicate what Haas has done without such an agreement. And I haven’t heard of any intention by RP to go down that path. Unless this changes, I see no meaningful difference between the current situation of RP and what other teams did in the past without becoming lapdog B teams.

          1. @montreal95

            And I haven’t heard of any intention by RP to go down that path.

            Well.. Lawrence Stroll was a very vocal supporter of Haas’ approach to F1 racing. He made a very public statement about how Williams should adopt that approach as well. Now that he has his own F1 team, I could clearly see him going down that path.

            1. @todfod That’s when he was just a frustrated racing dad. Now that he leads a consortium which owns a team which:

              a) Has been brilliant at doing its own thing and performing miracles with limited resources

              b) He has committed to and been required to keep the workforce employed as part of the agreement with the administrator

              c) Has plenty of strong and clever people there like Szafnauer and Green to dissuade him from going down that path

              I have not heard any comments from him toward that ever since he’s at RP

    4. I know i sound like a broken record but i really really dislike teams rebadging their (or even not really their) old cars as something they are not. Its not cool when Ferrari gives the F60 its 20th new paintjob, and the E20 is still not a renault.

      1. @mrboerns I couldn’t agree more with you.

    5. Cotd is a joke, HAAS aren’t even a B team in the way Torro Rosso is. Waste of space with that one @Keith

      Let me highlight a response from today’s article to really hammer the nail in:

      What’s your reaction when people refer to Rich Energy Haas F1 Team as a satellite team to Scuderia Ferrari?

      “I don’t really care. Some of the people that say that, I don’t really know what they mean by it. I think they don’t know what they mean with it. It’s normally the people that cannot understand why we’re doing such a good job. They just say we’re copying Ferrari. There are clearly written rules – what you can and can’t do – and we do everything to the rulebook. I don’t really care if they have a bad opinion about us.”

      1. @skipgamer the point of @todfod ‘s comment wasn’t to suggest that they were breaking the rules. But that that particular rule is breaking F1.

        I’m going to take the bait and feed the troll by suggesting that your responses to almost every article here are a waste of space.

        1. I’m not sure how directly insulting me personally is feeding a troll. Hope you feel better about it.

        2. Secretf1driver
          10th April 2019, 7:57

          Some people are only theoretical purists and have no idea what sort of relationships have been going on in the paddock for decades.

    6. The ‘B team’ debate isn’t going away:

      Maybe raising it in an article that has nothing to do with it causes that :P

      1. And using a team as an example of a B-Team when they clearly aren’t won’t help either

    7. It was only a matter of time before other midfield teams realise that it’s not economically efficient enough to invest in R&D, design and manufacturing of your own car or car parts.

      Research and development costs money. How is buying the fruit of someone else’s R & D worse than doing it yourself? If you employ a person on contract to design a chassis, is that better than signing a contract with Dallara that asks them to design your chassis? Surely getting a good chassis is the important thing.

      1. @drycrust you are entirely right, the competition is simply to get the best chassis/drivetrain and use that to win races and the championship.

        However, in the interests of competition both on and off the track, Formula 1 should employ a rule set that encourages teams to design and manufacture as many parts as possible (and a financial structure to assist with that) . In my opinion. Perhaps others disagree, but general sentiment towards F1 becoming a stock series is very negative. I’d be surprised if sentiment towards this is much different, for the same reasons.

        1. I should have said “as many performance related parts as possible”.

          I’m in favour of non performance differentiators being made stock parts in order to drive down costs.

          1. Isn’t that what the Listed Parts system is designed for?

            Anything with Aero effects are to be designed and manufactured by the constructors and cannot be purchased. This will include brake ducts from next year. Engine and Transmission have always been available to customers.

            The allegations that the Haas cars are last years Ferrari is completely nothing to do with the Listed Parts system. They’re wrongly conflated all of the time. Haas are obligated to design their chassis and aero work without assistance and if there was any proof that they’re just taking the Ferrari designs then take this to the FIA.

            The bit I take issue with Haas is Dallara. I don’t have a huge problem with them manufacturing the chassis as a start-up until they get their own capabilities online, but Haas aren’t really a constructor when they’re not actively designing or building their own aero work and chassis. The same applied for HRT, but unlike HRT, Haas at least pay their bills.

            The sub-contracting of the actual work of being a constructor isn’t the spirit of Formula 1 in my honest view and perhaps it is that, rather than the Listed Parts system that should be looked at going forward.

            1. BlackJackFan
              9th April 2019, 12:49

              One can argue about ‘B’ teams until the cows come home but… surely “constructor” means “constructor”… and not “assembler”
              Otherwise you’re just a race-entrant (with which I have no problem), and should not be eligible for WCC points…

    8. “I think Haas sets a terrible precedent for the sport…”
      The FIA wrote the rules, and Haas shouldn’t be disparaged for following them. Your beef should be with the FIA.

      1. *reply to cod

      2. Yes, I agree, it is within the rules. I’d go further and say that Haas were obligated to take advantage of those rules because they weren’t entitled to any Column 1 payments, for their first two seasons in F1, which is a wrong. Haas raced at every GP, so they should received Column 1 payments like every other team.

      3. @schooner

        It’s kind of a shared beef. The FIA for giving the option to all manufactures… and Haas for being the only team to really exploit the rules to the maximum.

    9. I think HAAS have been great for the sport, sticking it up the bigger teams, more power to them , the rules are set, they are playing by the rules, no one is knocking down doors to start a new constructors team are they? without HAAS, ? one less team, and we dont get to watch Grosjean crash

    10. Regarding the COTD. Haas isn’t a B team. I can see the arguments against the B teams. I would rather they die off and just have 4 Mercs, 4 Ferraris 4 Red Bulls 4 Renaults and of a few other teams with 2 cars, but that’s just me. Hass isn’t a B team as far as I see it. It reminds me more of the 70’s with a lot of teams buying chassis from other manufacturers and getting parts off the shelf. There isn’t going to be anymore new teams in F1 and like it or not the B teams are being saved because they are B teams. Haas model is really the only way forward for getting more teams.

    11. On CoTD, Lets put it this way, if team want to compete, or lets say reasonably compete, while staying healthy financially, they have no choice but to go down the Haas route. The big teams are always going to have more money, even when the money gets re-distributed. The Beast is now well out of hand and cannot be tamed. Is it sad that teams need go down this route? Is it practical? Yes on both accounts.

      I don’t have a problem with the likes of Haas, because it’s a very logical approach to F1. They aren’t being unrealistic like say Williams. It’s a romantic notion, to have independent teams of yesteryear fighting it out on a shoe string budget. However, this isn’t sustainable. Would I like to see every team sort their own kit out? Sure, but once again, this isn’t a savvy business decision in today’s landscape.

      As we don’t live in a perfect world, the bad outcome here, as we know, are the B-Teams that seem to be subservient to their masters. That I have an issue with. Now that F1 is effectively a clear 2 tier series, we don’t have too many issues with B-Teams having serious effect on the championship. However, if we ever get to a situation where a B-Team is a serious contender (I cannot see that ever happening, neither can I see Williams in its current guise ever winning a race again), then it would be very interesting.

      1. @jaymenon10

        You’re completely right man.. In the current environment, it’s more practical to take a Haas approach. But if Liberty are in the process of fixing the environment of F1. Shouldn’t they address the fact that we could have the same 3 to 4 teams fighting for championships every year, and another 7 to 8 teams just supporting their agenda? How on earth would new manufacturers ever enter the sport if their cost of running a team includes the parent team and two B teams to really be competitive?

        Additionally, F1 has already turned into a 2 tier championship. Can you imagine F1 staying like that for eternity? How would that improve the show? Williams might not be able to fight for a championship or race wins anytime soon, but they were competitive as recently as 2014 and 2015. They were the only team other Mercedes to take a pole position in 2014, they were quicker than Ferrari in 2014, and quicker than Red Bull in 2015. That kind of situation would never occur in F1 again if their only choice was to become a Mercedes B team.

        1. @todfod I’m really amazed at how many people here are in support of the Haas model.

          I like Haas. What they’ve done is impressive. But what that rule is doing to the championship is a concern, and further evidence that, as you’ve said, the environment needs fixing.

          1. @todfod @gongtong

            Although I didn’t explicitly state that the environment needs fixing, the underlying tone of my comment was as such.

            Liberty know the current environment isn’t favourable form the perspective of the show, nor is it favourable from the perspective of attracting new teams. The thing is though, we haven’t heard anything from Liberty that suggests a significant overhaul of the competitive order is on the cards come whenever they agree to restructure the financial distribution model. The proposed model that was presented by @dieterrencken on here didn’t look like its going to change much. Sure, some teams like RP and Williams would stand to earn a bit more, but the likes of Ferrari, RB and Mercedes have large corporations backing them, hence whatever downfall in revenue could be covered/absorbed. General wealth aside, these big players have significant advantages in areas of talent and facilities as well.

            Wiping the slate clean is easier said than done, but it almost feels like this is the only choice if you want to level the playing field.

          2. People support Haas because between them and Manor, or HRT or whatever team that comes along drags a car in the back of the field and disappears within 2 seasons. I would much prefer a new team to follow their model.

            Also, they aren’t a B team, despite what people have been saying, including RaceFans. And it amazes me when the subject is B-teams and nobody mentions STR. They where a test tube last season essentially depriving them of a fair shot, but apparently everyone felt that it was normal. So I wonder why that is. Is it because Haas has results or because they are Ferrari’s clients?

            Funny how the fans keep demanding more teams, but not just any team, no. For the F1 it has to be a privateer with no chance from the go at reaching consistent points positions, let alone winning races, with a weak financial structure, but know what “F1 is all about”. When it was common for team “back in the day” at the foundation of “what F1 is about” it was common for teams to share chassis, or parts of them or to buy them from eachother.

            We might also tolerate a new manufacturer, but better be something that we like!

            1. @johnmilk

              People support Haas because between them and Manor, or HRT or whatever team that comes along drags a car in the back of the field and disappears within 2 seasons. I would much prefer a new team to follow their model.

              I completely buy that argument. It’s more practical for a team to sustain themselves going down the Haas route as compared to Caterham or Marussia. In the short term, it does have it’s benefits as we have a decently competitive team in the midfield as compared to a bankrupt back marker. But what people fail to see are the implications on the sport of allowing a team to partner up with a constructor in that manner. If teams stop building their cars and become overly dependent on a constructor, they will eventually be racing with an agenda that suits the manufacturer. How does that add any value to the sport? Essentially, there will be only 3 to 4 teams on the grid – Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull and maybe Renault. The rest of the teams will just make up the numbers with zero ambition to win and a primary focus of just executing their supplier’s agenda. Toro Rosso is another example as you mentioned. A test bed for the Red bull team.

              And it amazes me when the subject is B-teams and nobody mentions STR.

              STR is as bad. At least STR builds part of their own car, but they probably won’t if more and more teams go down the Haas route.

              Funny how the fans keep demanding more teams, but not just any team, no. For the F1 it has to be a privateer with no chance from the go at reaching consistent points positions, let alone winning races, with a weak financial structure, but know what “F1 is all about”.

              That’s exactly why I mentioned that Liberty needs to look at how teams can sustain their own R&D instead of outsourcing most of their functions. Having independent constructors is essential to F1. Williams and Mclaren are as much a part of F1’s legacy as is Ferrari.

              When it was common for team “back in the day” at the foundation of “what F1 is about” it was common for teams to share chassis, or parts of them or to buy them from eachother.

              Just because it “happened back in the day” doesn’t make it the best way to move forward.

            2. @todfod you keep going to this idea that they are working towards Ferrari’s agenda when we don’t know that. To our best of knowledge they are Ferrari’s clients. If the problem is for a team to partner with a constructor then they are all doomed. Look at Mercede’s clients, they have been sliding down the field year on year, maybe we should question why that is?

              B Teams are a problem? Well definitely, at least in the moulds they are working now, especially STR, and for the looks of it Alfa. But Haas isn’t a B team. And I personally don’t have a problem with teams buying things from each-other, it certainly would help their financial model (image for example that parts that someone buys to Williams don’t count for the budget cap, wouldn’t that be good? And I say Williams but could be any other, essentially promoting teams to develop their own R&D)

              But what people fail to see are the implications on the sport of allowing a team to partner up with a constructor in that manner. If teams stop building their cars and become overly dependent on a constructor, they will eventually be racing with an agenda that suits the manufacturer. How does that add any value to the sport?

              I understand what you mean, but that is a bit of a romantic point of view, and I get it, because I share that romanticism with you (xoxo). But I don’t see a problem with a team entering in the sport like Haas, in fact I would welcome more, as long as they stay as clients, only that, and for now that is what they are. And if that is such a bad thing, it is urgent to get a independent engine supplier, we all can see how that is working out, and if I take Mercedes’ example again it is clear to see why having manufacturers providing engines to midfield teams isn’t that good of a proposition either.

              Ideal scenario, and I think that it is what the rules, or the rules writers wanted to happen is: A team wants to enter F1, they are not part of a large organisation, manufacturer if you will, they are allowed to buy parts from an already established team, which will establish them in the sport with a strong financial position, and competitiveness from the go. Afterwards (remember Haas is only in their 4th year, and Mercedes has more people in catering than they do to run two cars week in week out) a that team, when it gets its bearings has two options. Maintain level of involvement and competitiveness by remaining clients or try to improve on that by taking that gathered knowledge and starting making new parts that eventually are better than those that come from the supplier and try to push for bigger results.

              This would be ideal. Of course, and here I fully agree with you, the proposition of a B-Team would have to disappear, and be replaced with client teams. Alfa and STR would have to re-think their model, but please lets stop with this wrongful statement that Haas is a B team and that they work towards their provider agenda, we simply don’t know that. It might be true, it is F1 and Ferrari after all, but we don’t know, and if we are to criticise that behaviour lets do it right and point fingers to Alfa and STR

              Just because it “happened back in the day” doesn’t make it the best way to move forward.

              You know what I meant with that reference, it was a good reference, don’t take it out of place

        2. Additionally, F1 has already turned into a 2 tier championship.

          Great news indeed, @todfod, as it used to be three tiered.
          There were teams that couldn’t even qualify within 7%!

          1. Williams doesn’t get a tier of their own?

            1. I’ll shed a tear for them ;)
              @johnmilk

        3. @todfod
          Your argument still keeps going back to the idea that HAAS is a Ferrari B team, but it’s not. They’ve got the non-listed parts from Ferrari and that’s it, the rest is Dallara and themselves. The closest Ferrari have at the moment to a B team is Alfa, because there’s actually a link there financially to Ferrari as a whole, owning that team.

          Steiner went looking for the best way to get those parts, as all teams do (some decide to make them) and found it with Ferrari, that’s it. To say that Ferrari is somehow “running” HAAS as your first paragraph implies a manufacturer is being required to is ridiculous.

          @gongtong including you because you don’t seem to understand either.

          1. @skipgamer

            No one said Ferrari is “running” Haas. I think you’re missing the point.

            This isn’t a shot at Haas, but instead is a shot at how teams will now start working being entirely dependent on their suppliers, and eventually race with the supplier’s agenda. It’s more an issue with the rules, and it’s implications on the future of the grid. Haas is the first team to fully exploit this dependency on a supplier, something that other teams could have done, but refrained from for ages. This will effectively snowball in to all midfield and back marker teams collaborating with manufacturers, and a few teams will control the entire grid through “partnerships” . Partnerships that cannot be broken because their entire existence in the sport depends on the parts supplied to them by their supplier.

            Maybe you need to take a step back and see the bigger picture.

        4. @todfod I don’t know why you’re so wound up about HOW teams go racing. If it translates to closer on track action then just sit back and enjoy it. Life’s too short.

          1. BlackJackFan
            9th April 2019, 12:58

            But… with F1 and F1.5 it seems not to “translates to closer on track action”… There’s a big gap in there… and that’s not the only one…
            Though I do otherwise agree: Life’s too short…

    12. Couldn’t agree less with the COTD. If a team aspires to become champions they need to pony up the money. It’s the same in any motorsport or even regular sport.

      For the teams that don’t aspire to be champions (on the short term) yet simply wish to compete, they are helped tremendously by using existing parts as much as possible.

      If those teams ever get to a point where they find the results and then with those results the additional finances (ie large sponsor) to develop their own parts, they can switch to that.

      In any case, it means smaller teams can do more with less money, which means they can close up the gap to the top teams. Win-win

      It’s much more effective than giving them a couple of million extra from the price money heap. Which in the end only truly helped Renault who actually ARE aspiring to be fighting for the championship. So that was completely useless.

      Only other alternative which I hope will actually be implemented one day would be a budget cap. That would actually force performance levels closer.

    13. I wish Renault used R30 from 2010 or the 2011 R31 (effectively under the Lotus already) for the demo runs instead of the E20, or even either of the mid-2000s title-winners of R25 and R26. The 2012 cars, in general, have never really been my favorite F1-cars, but the cars of the surrounding seasons more so.

      I disagree with the COTD for the aspects elaborated above by some.

      Finally, some good news on Silverstone, and hopefully, that indeed would happen.

    14. Barrichello made 323 GP starts, Kimi 294 thus far…

    15. So Renault do a demo run at Euro Disney and everyone loses it over degrading a car that wasn’t theirs, yet no one commented on the fact it was around a Mickey mouse track???? Just me who thought that was funny then???

    Comments are closed.