Robert Kubica, Alfa Romeo, Circuit de Catalunya, 2020

Making cars lighter is the best way to ‘improve the show’ – Kubica

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Robert Kubica says reversing the rising weight of Formula 1 cars is the best way to improve the quality of racing.

What they say

Kubica was talking to Pirelli motorsport director Mario Isola on Instagram:

I would definitely reduce the weight of the car. I think that there would be more than one advantage and in different regions as well.

First of all the cars will be nicer to drive, more reactive, and they will give you a chance to recover. So there will be less inertia when the car slides. It means that the car would be easier to catch and it will unlock more aggressive driving.

Also it will help the tyres because the force goes through to the tyre from downforce. The cars are much bigger now and they are much heavier. So I think the tyres are stressed much more than they were 10 years ago.

This will make the tyres’ life easier, which will also unlock possibility to attack them more, to drive more aggressive. I think it will be the most efficient way of improving the show and also the feeling of the drivers, which is a very common line, because if the drivers are able to attack more, it will be a better show.

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

Bernie Ecclestone’s closeness to Sebastian Vettel explains his recent comments about Lewis Hamilton, says Stephen:

it does look like Mr Ecclestone is writing the historical account for Vettel.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see Leclerc win some races if Lewis went to Ferrari, but I would be surprised to see him win more than Lewis, at least for the next few years anyway.
Stephen Crowsen (@Drycrust)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Aniket Garg!

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

  • 65 years ago today Jean Behra won the non-championship Pau Grand Prix in a Maserati after long-time leader Alberto Ascari was sidelined by a braking problem

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

  • 78 comments on “Making cars lighter is the best way to ‘improve the show’ – Kubica”

    1. vettel was saying the same thing few days ago, cars are too heavy

      1. It has been part of this impromptu silly season for a week now.

        1. Pretty much this @coldfly. It really brings me back to the time Bernie, Red Bull and then the Sky pundits started downtalking the new engines before the 2014 season started.

          1. @bascb And they were correct. Not in relation to the V8s IMO but in relation to the V10s certainly. These engines don’t sound that great, and nor are they great in any other sense unless you’re technically inclined, which, while may sound as a surprise to some, most F1 fans aren’t. Plus, as I, and many others, had predicted at the time on this site, they didn’t make F1 look any better in the eyes of the eco-mentalists. And nor have they brought many other manufacturers to F1, because these seem to answer to the eco-mentalists every whim nowadays. So what was these engines point again?

            And now, those who say that F1 cars have become way too heavy for their own good are ten times more correct even than those correct voices you mention from 2014

            1. Sigh, where to start with that one @montreal95. Well, let me try.

              First of all, the complaints started with Bernie before he EVER heard one. They were loudly supported by Red Bull as soon as they learned their domination with the Blown exhaust was over, and the new engine was not on the same level or even close, with the top of the field. Ferrari joined in when they learned they were slower than Mercedes.
              The Sky crew at the time were wholly absorbed by every fart Bernie put out and doted on every word Horner said about it. They never really even apologized when to the fans that they themselves, and the placement of microphones inside the car on behest of Bernies FOM were part of the issue – badly recorded sounds and then never worked to actually enhance them.

              I have heard the V10 often enough. And yes, they were nice. V12 had a nice sound too. But they were far worse engines. The V8 off Bernie et all touted as better than the new V6es were worse in all aspects. Loud, all the same, just screaming noise without good notes. The new engines sound far more interesting, cars sound differently, AND you can hear more of the enignes etc. All good to me.

              “eco-mentalists” (ok, not going to go down that pithole) never were interested in these engines, or really F1s efforts, which is completely normal when we accept that the company running F1 and the two biggest brands in it at the introduction were loudly shouting about how much nonsense they were. Remember, Marketing works on us humans.

              About the weight – did you see me write anything against how lower weight is good for racing cars? Tell me if you find it here.
              I am in support of lower weight cars. But off all the things F1 needs it is currently really far from top priority. Lowering weight will not make the racing suddenly better, just like making the cars faster with more downforce and bigger (Gasp, higher weight!) tyres with more contact patch did not make the racing any better.

              Another point that is important – unless the ones proposing “lighter cars” come up with a cheap and easy way to do so (the only thing i can see rightaway is to make thinner wheels, that would work), it really is not a good idea right now.

            2. @bascb not to mention that the V10 era ended up destroying independent engine manufacturing in F1, leaving the sport dependent on those manufacturers that the likes of montreal95 is complaining about.

              What happened to outfits like Hart or Judd? They were either driven out of the sport due to the cost of competing, or went bankrupt altogether in trying to stay there.

              As for Cosworth, that only survived because Cosworth was owned and funded by Ford, which underwrote their costs for most of that period – they basically admitted that trying to stay in F1 when the V8’s came along nearly ruined the company financially in the end (their return in 2010 ended up as a loss making exercise).

            3. And now, those who say that F1 cars have become way too heavy

              Most obesity fighters forget that the old engines are less efficient (29% to 50%). The extra fuel (and heavier fuel tank) you need to finish a race is more than the extra weight of the hybrid engine.
              You still start with a heavier car which only becomes lighter when burning up the fuel.

              It’s like in the real world: when you exercise more you gain some weight in muscle mass, but overall you are healthier.
              And yes, you puff and huff less when climbing the stairs, but only the nostalgics like that sound.
              @montreal95, @bascb

            4. @bascb Sighing back…

              Let me retort as thoroughly as I can in the circumstances(not one of those quarantined actually work much more now so sorry in advance)

              Re: Bernie, RBR, Ferrari I wasn’t talking about their motives. Only that they were correct. How on earth their motives are relevant to the current situation? Do we not know how weight influences the F1 cars?

              V10s and V12s were worse engines in all those aspects that are irrelevant to most F1 fans. They may be relevant to you. But it was already proven that the sound of the engines is far more important to the casual F1 fan than thermal efficiency. This is not an engineering exercise, this is a spectator sport. Being viscerally exciting is far more important since without fans there’s no money and no F1. And I’m not talking about the small percentage of “super-fans” who care about the tech stuff.

              No, the eco-mentalists(pithole indeed, or worse) aren’t interested in F1 not because of marketing or any such easy explanation. They aren’t interested because nothing F1 will do short of suicide will satisfy them. Simple as that. It’s time for F1 to stop worrying about the opinions of those who never cared about it, or even hated it(eco-mentalists, the VW group etc.) and start caring about those without whom there’s no F1 whatsoever-its fans.

              Where did you see me saying that you were against lower weight? Or saying that the lower weight is panacea from all F1’s problems? But it’s one of the things that in co-operation with other measures can improve F1

              As to your last point, where there’s a will there’s a way. As soon as F1 will say this is a goal I’m sure the way to do so will be found. F1 is full of brilliant tech minds, I’d leave it to them to worry about the technicalities so I don’t have to thank you very much

            5. @anon Nonsense. It’s not like they(Hart and the like) would not be destroyed had F1 persisted with the unlimited engine capacities. They would perish much quicker in fact. The V10’s were introduced as cost cutting measure among other things. The real problem is spiraling costs which was and is the root of all F1 problems and only now 20 years later they start to address it

            6. @coldfly You’re maths are wrong. The cars nowadays use 105 kg per race. The V8s used around 160kg in 2013. V10s used around 210 in 2005. Notwithstanding efficiency developments which would have happened over the years had they not been replaced the maths are: 742+105=847. 640+160=800kg. 605+210=815kg. So even at the start of the races the V8’s and V10’s were lighter than nowadays efficient cars. And since the fuel would disappear at a much faster rate, the difference in weight would only increase with every lap. With the cascade effect on the tires etc.

            7. @montreal95, you forget that a big chunk of the obesity is not PU related.
              If you look at this chart you can see that only some 63kg of the overall weight increase is linked to the PU (or slightly more if you compare the minimum PU weight mentioned withing the regulations).
              The rest of the weight increase is primarily safety (halo), well-being (driver weight), aesthetics (wider cars/wheels), or Ferrari related (multiple fuel flow meters). This has nothing to do with the engine formula.

              PS I believe max fuel usage has been increased to 110kg.

            8. @bascb Sighing back…

              Let me retort as thoroughly as I can in the circumstances(not one of those quarantined actually work much more now so sorry in advance)

              Re: Bernie, RBR, Ferrari I wasn’t talking about their motives. Only that they were correct. How on earth their motives are relevant to the current situation? Do we not know how weight influences the F1 cars?

              V10s and V12s were worse engines in all those aspects that are irrelevant to most F1 fans. They may be relevant to you. But it was already proven that the sound of the engines is far more important to the casual F1 fan than thermal efficiency. This is not an engineering exercise, this is a spectator sport. Being viscerally exciting is far more important since without fans there’s no money and no F1. And I’m not talking about the small percentage of “super-fans” who care about the tech stuff.

              No, the eco-mentalists aren’t interested in F1 not because of marketing or any such easy explanation. They aren’t interested because nothing F1 will do short of the death of F1 will satisfy them. Simple as that. It’s time for F1 to stop worrying about the opinions of those who never cared about it, or even hated it(eco-mentalists, the VW group etc.) and start caring about those without whom there’s no F1 whatsoever-its fans.

              Where did you see me saying that you were against lower weight? Or saying that the lower weight is panacea from all F1’s problems? But it’s one of the things that in co-operation with other measures can improve F1

              As to your last point, where there’s a will there’s a way. As soon as F1 will say this is a goal I’m sure the way to do so will be found. F1 is full of brilliant tech minds, I’d leave it to them to worry about the technicalities so I don’t have to thank you very much

            9. @montreal95 – well, good to hear that work is flowing for you!

              To me the motives of them ARE important. Because it can hint to what they are NOT telling us. Surveys about how important the sound is were made most recently right after we had months of all TV crews telling us how horrible these engines sound. That delutes the facuality of those surveys.

              The reason we lost V12, and got more V10s, and then we got more V8s was simply engineers finding that they offered better performance vs. weight and fuel economy. More fuel in the car means going slower. That is the best argument an engineer can make for the current engines.

              Ultimaly, the racing doesn’t change all that much regardless of what the engine is like. More important is how an engine (max power, efficiency, weight, size, power delivery) relates to the rest of the car. To mechanical grip, to Aerodynamics etc. The last time we as fans were pushed into a direction the parties pushing for it gave us these faster cars that make close racing even harder (since 2017). They didn’t change the engine to do that, they increased tyre size (adding weight) and changing the aero (the wider cars also added weight).
              Did they give us what they made us think we wanted? Probably. Did it really improve F1 though?

              If you think F1 would be better off with “spectacular” engines like V12s and/or V10s, then in effect you talk about limiting Engineers’ freedom to come up with more efficient, lighter, faster engines. Because engineers choosing performance for a 2-3 hour race wouldn’t go to those inefficient beasts. It means you are talking about making F1 more entertainment than sport.

              The simplest answer to “Why these engines?” is “because we want top notch engines”. The alternative would probably have been to source a single spec engine from one or two parties that can then be badged. But it would have probaply meant that manufacturers wouldn’t be interested and wouldn’t want to pony up the money for the engines.

          2. @coldfly I believe you’re right about that last point. And I don’t care about where the increases in weight come from really. I merely agreed with Vettel, Kubica, Hamilton etc. that F1 should actively look for a way to bring the weight of F1 cars back down. It’s one of the things wrong with modern F1(by no means a cure-all but it’s a thing) As I said in my reply to bascb, F1 is full of brilliant tech minds and where there’s a will there’s a way

        2. A week? Hamilton has been saying it for years

      2. The cars are too heavy. I’ve been saying the same things as kubica for quite a while. While the handling improvements of lighter car are obvious it would also make it easier for pirelli to make better tires. Pirelli has probably the hardest job tire manufacturer has ever had in F1. There is more tire wear, any sliding will eat away the tire quicker and heat them up quicker. And this makes it impossible for the driver to push because the tires have really narrow optimal temperature range. Then add to that massive downforce levels (more than ever before) and it is difficult to make a tire that is great because the tire loads are massive all the time.

      3. this is such a Hoax. More fun for the driver? Probably. better show? the oh so great early 2000s v10s everyone has such a massive bonker for right now basically didn’t way anything and despite what people try to propagate today, the show was atrociously bad and most talk of the day was about a) Lack of overtaking b) refueling ruining races c) grooved tires being stupid d) the v10s being Less powerful than the ‘turbo monsters’ and e) the narrow cars being stupid. the thing bringing variety to the table was Half of the grid’s (except shuey) engine blowing up on the regular

        1. @mrboerns Totally agree. This is really just for the drivers.

        2. @mrboerns
          I don’t think it is just for the drivers. Making the cars lighter allows drivers to push more because the tires can be pushed harder. This can be seen in the broadcast as the cars will be more on the limit, slipping and sliding. And especially in races when the tire wear and heat is not the only thing that matters. The v10 era race surely were more processional than any modern races because back then the differences between the teams were larger but at least it was not one team winning every race and championship. The cars sounded amazing, they looked fast and a driver could still manhandle the car to put it higher on the grid than it deserved.

          And v10s did not have less power. Sure the peak number is lower but the v10 can give 100% of its 950hp everytime you give it 100% throttle whereas the hybrid is programmed to give 100% only in couple of places on the track because the electric side is limited. The rest of the time it is well below its maximum which means for majority of the lap the v10 is producing more power. As is explained here for example:
          https://f1i.com/magazine/52167-how-does-ers-deployment-work.html

          1. @socksolid that particular article does in fact point that energy transfer between the MGU-H and the MGU-K is unlimited – you seem to be deliberately leaving out that aspect and acting as if the MGU-K is the sole source of power.

            Considering that Honda have published – unfortunately in Japanese, so it is not accessible to many – technical articles over the past few years explaining how they are doing that, it would seem that four year old article is now quite out of date with current practise in F1 (and why those putting about the claim that the electrical power is limited to 33.3s of the lap cannot have actually read the regulations correctly either).

            1. The article was posted just to explain what is happening. “Some” japanese honda pr material does not prove anything. You have not even proved the existence of such.

    2. They should be cautions about trying to run different versions of the same circuit because with Silverstone if they were to run the GP layout & then the 2 shorter National/International variations I just don’t see how you put on a good show on the 2 short layouts. Your removing some of the best corners as well as some of the overtaking zones & making the remaining one’s less realistic given the change to the run to them.

      There desperately trying to find ways to run as many races as possible just to keep a high number of races in the season & I don’t think that is necessarily the best approach. I certainly know that trying to squeeze as many races as possible into a short period of time is something that is going to do more harm than good & is something a majority of the teams that are already suffering financially are vehemently against with the personnel who would feel the brunt of it even more vehemently against it.

      1. @gt-racer There’s also the issue that neither short circuit is long enough to get Grade 1 certification, thus likely to fail to get FIA approval for F1 cars. It might, however, be a way to get F3 (if not F2) up to a sufficient number of races to meet their international status requirements.

    3. If F1 holds multiple races at Silverstone for TV only I don’t think there is any real need for different track layouts (although a good idea if the variants were all good and ready now), look for instance at American oval racing (yes, I know there are some differences) where TV audiences tune in every week to see basically the same race format, it is what happens in the race, not the track layout that provides the “show”. Every year there is a race at Silverstone and no 2 races are identical because the permutations are infinite whether the races are 365 or 7 days apart.

      1. Agreed. Look at the Forumla-e races that race on the same track in two consecutive days.

      2. I would make 1 change, @Hohum:
        Run one race on softs only, one on mediums, and one on hard tyres.
        Pit stops (same compound) optional.

        Different cars will have different strengths and weaknesses on each of these compounds which set-ups cannot eliminate.

        1. @coldfly, but having pitstops requires more crew at the track, the fewer people involved the better the chance of getting approval. As regards punctures, it would have to be sudden death (metaphorically), rain might require a red flag and restart, 1 man per car to change wheels in the garage.

          1. @hohum having pit stops doesn’t actually increase the number of people at the track, because those pit crew operatives are not picked solely to do that role.

            The pit crews are people who would be at the circuit anyway, but might have a role that means they are not directly doing anything during the race itself. Quite commonly, the pit crew workers are formed from the mechanics allocated to that car – so they’ll still be there even if there were no pit stops during the race.

            1. ANON, Yes I know that in NORMAL times that is true, as you have told me before, BUT times are not normal, the reason why I believe Silverstone could run is because most of the F1 factories are very close by and there would be no need to to assemble the cars at the track, they could be driven onto trailers at the factory in race-ready condition and driven off the trailers at the track ( racing point could drive their from factory to track). This would mean a very reduced number of pitcrew would be needed at the track.

            2. @hohum and in the event of an accident, do the teams then have to pick up that wrecked car, take it back to their home base and then rebuild it there, before then having to drive it back to the circuit?

              Equally, are you really reducing the risks to those personnel, or are you really just changing the potential point of exposure from the circuit to the factory?

            3. “are you really just changing the potential point of exposure from the circuit to the factory?”
              good point anon

            4. ANON, Okay, then we just accept that there will be no F1 for 2020, I’m looking for ways to get races on TV for F1 revenue and fan interest, not saying it will be easy, you apparently want the factory shutdown to last until a vaccine has been developed. @coldfly cc.

            5. @hohum if you want such a scheme, then you have to be prepared to answer the sorts of questions that the organisers are likely to be asking and the sorts of questions that government health departments will be asking.

              After all, given the UK government is discouraging people from going to places of work, for the teams which are based in the UK, you would have to be able to give an explanation to them for why you want large numbers of people to then congregate at their factory and work on assembling those cars.

      3. Yes, that sounds like it’s worth a try. Since the track is being used, then once they’ve run one race they could use that result in lieu of the next race’s Qualifying round.

        1. @drycrust, a good idea but a bit harsh for any cars that had to retire due to punctures or collision damage.

          1. @hohum True, it is a bit harsh in that regard, but on the other hand there’s the chance of similar things happening in a Qualifying session. The main reason I mentioned it was because of the potential for a one day session. I’m not exactly sure how that would work, but the idea was everyone turns up on one day, does the race, and then goes home.

            1. @drycrust, fair enough. All ideas need consideration.

    4. Two things. First yes absolutely the weight is becoming an issue these aren’t family sedans that need to appeal to mums & dads with all of the latest gadgets added each yr. F1 needs to put the cars not the drivers on a weight loss program, the racing would improve accordingly.
      Also added safety does not have to equal added weight.

      Secondly If the cars are becoming to ‘easy’ to drive that’s also an issue. f1 should be the most challenging Motor Sport on drivers besides Rallying. I’d like to see F1 become more physically challenging and I think most drivers would be up for that.

      1. @johnrkh Not necessarily. The quality of racing and minimum overall car+driver weights aren’t connected. The aero is what has been harmful to it, not the overall weight. I agree with the part that added safety doesn’t have to equal added weight, though, nor do ‘standard’ parts handed out by a separate third-party instead of built and manufactured in-house by the teams, etc.

        1. I agree there @jerejj. Just look at the best times for Indycars (or rather CART at the time) in the 90′. Those cars were HEAVY (and pretty large too) because they didn’t use all that fancy materials, but man were they fast. And wow was the racing great.

          Sure, lowering weight makes the cars more nimble. And yes, that is a good thing for race cars. But the question really is about priorities. Putting in more complicated structures and more expensive materials to lower weight really is pretty far down on my list of things to do @johnrkh

          1. @bascb equally, the current weight of IndyCars in road course trim, including driver, is about 766kg – making them heavier than current F1 cars and about the same weight as the cars will become under the upcoming regulation changes. However, people like to praise the quality of the racing in IndyCar, despite the high weight of those cars.

            1. Well noted Anon. While it’s a bit of a shame that the current Indycars all look alike, the racing they have between them is quite watchable, “despite” or rather regardless of their higher weight.

    5. Ferrari dodged a bullet in 2008 then. Vettel wouldn’t have helped much developing a car (…Fred also had issues in this regard) and he’s not outstanding in a car that doesn’t suit him. The killer would have been giving up points to Alonso in another team.

      1. @didaho But who would Ferrari have signed him in place of? Raikkonen? It’s understandable if you want to replace Raikkonen with Alonso, another to replace him with a 21-year-old Vettel who was still quite accident-prone and wasn’t consistent enough yet. One thing they could potentially have done is sign Vettel for 2009, and then replace Massa with Alonso in 2010. That might have been the most sensible decision. That way their long-term future would have been set, but they might have been wary of what happened to McLaren in 2007.

        1. As opposed to the current 32 year old Vettel who is still quite accident prone/prone to spinning and quite inconsistent?

        2. @mashiat at the time that Schumacher appears to have been making those calls, which was in 2008, I believe both Massa and Raikkonen were under contract with Ferrari until 2010.

          Whilst it is not impossible that they could have brought Vettel in that early, I suspect that Red Bull could have made it difficult for Ferrari. Red Bull had a gap that they needed to fill in their driver line up, given that Coulthard was retiring from the team at the end of the 2008 season, and I think we can be pretty confident they weren’t going to be offering that role to Bourdais.

          With Red Bull’s long term plans to be for Vettel to drive for them, I don’t think they’d have willingly released him from his contract to go to Ferrari in 2009 given it would have left them with a gap in their line up that needed replacing. That point to 2010 being a more likely possible start date, at which point either driver could have been replaced – or maybe Vettel could have been hired as a replacement to Massa after he was injured?

        3. @mashiat If they were thinking of signing him in 2008, I suspect it would have been to replace Massa. Swapping the defending world champion for someone that new, when the other driver is only just coming on-song, would not have been a wise idea. Though given that Massa was fighting for the title at this point, I would have thought there was more mileage in using the negotiations to keep the current drivers under control (and monitor Vettel’s situation in case of a better subsequent opportunity) than to actually replace anyone in that moment.

          1. @alianora-la-canta Like you mentioned, there’s no way Ferrari would have ditched Massa at that point when he very well could have won them the WDC that year. Firstly, it might derail their chances of winning the 2008 WDC, and it would also be embarrassing if they were to let the reigning F1 world champion leave at the end of the season while at the peak of his powers for a relatively unproven driver.

    6. Just read the news of Italy extending the lockdown furthur and with 3 teams based there dont see how factories will open or if F1 can even get to racing anytime soon in 2020.

      1. @Chaitanya Two teams actually. The rest are in England and Switzerland. Seven and one respectively.

          1. Brembo is also an Italian partner, as is Pirelli (although producing in Turkey).

          2. @peartree Yes, but that isn’t the same as the actual team-factory in Banbury, in which the cars are kept and serviced.

            1. @jerejj I’m sure chaitanya knows that. haas can’t race without Dallara making most of the car. Then there is Brembo, like @coldfly and as @alianora-la-canta pointed out Pirelli’s italian base, at least there are other brake manufacturers.

      2. @Chaitanya Especially when F1 gets all its tyres from Milan (and Pirelli’s base)…

    7. Did I miss a mention of it on this site, or has it not yet been covered? Apparently, Williams have got a loan believed to be £50m from Nick Latifi’s father.

      Formula One team Williams wins lifeline from Canadian food tycoon (The Telegraph, UK)

      [Michael Latifi] could end up with the keys to Williams too as its loan is secured on the team’s contract to race in F1. It also covers 112 historic cars including its first F1 entrant and the one Mr Mansell won the championship with in 1992.

      The loan was finalised last week and although the documents do not state how much has been transferred, it is thought to be at least £50m. The team’s latest accounts show that its cars are worth £20m whilst its land and buildings are valued at £30.7m.

      1. Thank you.
        Interesting development.

      2. @phylyp Thank you, this is important. I hope Williams is in a position to manage this loan well (yes, I realise that this Racing Point fan might be a bit sensitive due to how the Force India/BWT loan “sponsorship” progressed…)

    8. Just do the two or more consecutive races on the same track with the same layout without changing anything as every single race is always different outcome-wise anyway. Furthermore, no need to place races on weekdays. Nothing wrong with Sunday either, so once again, ”if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

      As for Kubica’s words: Not necessarily. The quality of racing and minimum overall car+driver weights aren’t connected. The aero is what has been harmful to it, not the overall weight.

      1. More weight = more tire degradation and more centrifugal force in corners, whatever the aero is doing. While the aero may be the main culprit for the bad racing, the weight is certainly contributing as well.

    9. I think kubica makes a fair point, reducing weight would help mitigate some limitations, not all, the ones he describes. Reducing the car weight would also increase safety, reducing fuel load taking out the battery and the other bits, maybe 150 kg could be shaved off from the Pu

    10. I know they need to save contracts and “put on a show”, but I don’t want a messy calender with multiple races crammed together. There will be too much going on and like a previous COD said, if you have new found freedom then I won’t be spending it in front of the TV watching motorsports.
      Also it’s difficult to keep up with the esports racing let alone real GP’s during a weekday.

    11. The only thing F1 had to do at the end of the 2000s, early 2010s, make the cars capable of following each other by cleaning up dirty air and make the cars look better than 2013, and you would have come close to a purists F1 dream.
      But then f1 had to follow the road relevance demands from manufacturers that drop F1 like a stone the moment it suits them better, and the fans are stuck with an even more flawed sport that took away some of the best elements of show.
      It appears that F1 will never learn what is the most important and will always be squabbling over money and power, just like every other sporting organisation its completely corrupted by bureaucratic and megalomaniacal bobo’s.

      1. Sums up my thoughts on this current era of F1 power units. The 2014 regulations were meant to reduce costs, attract manufacturers, and improve competition (considering that the previous four seasons were all won by Red Bull). So how did that turn out?

        -Cosworth pulled out and Honda has been the only manufacturer to join, so we went from four manufacturers to four.
        -Of course costs weren’t reduced. They became too much to bear that Caterham and Marussia/Manor pulled out.
        -The same three teams have won races since 2014: Red Bull, Mercedes, Ferrari. Even in the apparent dark ages of Ferrari and Red Bull domination, there was a higher variety of different winners,
        -Mercedes have won a higher percentage of races than Ferrari from 2000-2004 and Red Bull from 2010-2013.

    12. Yup, cars heavy and also long. Too much of a good thing? Pre-war retro nostalgia? Sorta like watching two men carry a ladder round a tight corner.

    13. As F1 is struggling how are the things in lower categories? Salaries and other expenses are smaller but I was just wondering how are the things in F2 and F3..

    14. @keithcollantine Thanks for selecting my comment as the comment of the day.

    15. Imagine Alonso going to Red Bull instead and winning all those titles. He would have been a happy man.

      1. Impossible, he downgrades the evolution of the cars. So Red Bull would have won 0 championships. He’s utterly mediocre in developing cars. He was lucky the Renault he took was prepared by Button, Fisichella and Trully.

        1. alex, when you claim that he took over a car “prepared by Button”, that would be the Renault R23 which was developed over the course of the 2002 season by Renault’s test driver – who happened to be Fernando Alonso?

          Furthermore, back in the early 2000s, Button was an inexperienced driver and admitted that it was hurting his performances. For example, in late 2001 he admitted that he was having persistent set up issues due to his inexperience and difficulties with getting to grips with the handling of the car, and indeed the complaints about him tending to get stuck in ruts with his set up is one that persisted throughout his career – just remember the criticism he got for some races over a decade later, such as in the 2012 Canadian GP.

          As for Fisichella – how is Fisichella meant to have contributed to the development of the R23 when he left Benetton, before Renault bought it to turn it into the works team, back in 2001? The R23 wasn’t under development at that time, so there is no way that Fisichella could have contributed to the development of that car considering he was driving for Jordan at the time.

          Equally, how is Fisichella meant to have been responsible for the development of the R25? When development work started on the R25, which would have been during the 2004 season, Fisichella was driving for Sauber – how is Fisichella meant to have contributed to the development of that car during a period when he was employed by an entirely different team?

          As an aside, if you’re going to throw those sorts of accusations around, it would help if you could spell the names of the drivers correctly (his surname is Trulli).

          1. t o t a l a n n i h i l a t i o n

            1. Truly.

    16. My 2cents that no one asked for: Agree with Kubica. Cars definitely need to be lighter but more importantly…the cars need to SMALLER as well. Especially for street circuits and narrow tracks where you can’t overtake as one car takes up all the road. Farcical. I have yet to hear one good reason why the cars are so huge at the moment.

      1. +1 Testify brother!

      2. Also, the reason the cars are so big is because their upper surfaces can maximize down force whilst decreasing racing excitement. Simple ;)

    17. I would love to see Kubica compete in the Indycar Iracing. His sim experience is top notch, and his physical impediments would be greatly lessened. Unfortunately, as a fan, I understand that he is completely committed to physical racing and would probably view esports as just an entertainment and a training tool, not a replacement for the real thing.

    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'.