Nikita Mazepin, Haas, 2020

Haas hopes Mazepin learned from “deluge of criticism”

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Haas team owner Gene Haas says he hopes Nikita Mazepin has learned from the criticism he received after a video showing him groping a woman appeared on his Instagram account last year.

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

AlphaTauri’s revised livery divided opinion but has some enthusiastic admirers:

I love it. I love the fact it has white wheels which throws me back to the ’94 Benetton, and the blue with the horizontal divide throws me back to both the colour of the Parmalat Brabham with the essence of the ’97 Arrows that Hill drove. I really love it.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Mondol and Carlitox!

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

  • Born on this day in 1937: Future IndyCar and NASCAR team owner, now owner of IndyCar Roger Penske (also a two-times F1 race starter)

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

  • 47 comments on “Haas hopes Mazepin learned from “deluge of criticism””

    1. Lol thanks BE but I disagree to both, and they’ve already done away with the reverse grid thing anyway.

      1. Lol – I’m sure media people only seek out Bernie for comment these days because they know he’ll say something silly and controversial.

        Surely we’re way past time for him being relevant in any way now.

    2. Everyone is going to bag out Bernie for answering a question that was put to him, but I agree with him.
      I’d prefer both points and a reverse grid if they are going to have sprint races. Works great in F2 with a partial reverse grid.
      If the 2022 cars are going to be as good as some people seem to think, then we’ll get some fine racing and entertainment.
      In the meantime for this year, that’d be far more useful than three mini GP’s on Saturdays, with nothing changing from the actual GP’s in terms of pace, performance or grid order.
      Another opportunity lost.

      1. It only works in F2 cos the feature race is before the sprint race. Qualifying determines the proper grid for the main full scoring race. Then partially reversed grid for the lesser race with lesser points.
        F1 will be the other way around, so the sprint race impacts the proper Grand Prix. That’s why I’m not a fan of it.

        1. It works in F2 because the cars are all equally competitive. There’s a tip for F1…
          As for points – both races award points in relation to their duration, so both are worth fighting for. One affects the other and the order makes no difference in reality – unless principles are more important than the actual product…? Qualifying sets the grid for the first race. The result of that determines the grid for the next one. Same same.

          I just keep thinking that it wouldn’t have hurt anyone to run a few of them in F1, and then they’d be done and a judgement could be made with some facts rather than supposition.
          Ironically, that’s the same reason that many who oppose them are more accepting of running plain vanilla trial sprint races – because they are a trial and not a permanent inclusion….

      2. Works great in F2 with a partial reverse grid.

        DoeS it?
        I’m not an avid follower of F2, but whenever I read an article about a race win I check immediately if it was the main race or the sprint race. I tend to disregard the sprint race statistics except for overtaking actions.

        1. I couldn’t care less about statistics. They aren’t an accurate reflection of what actually takes place.
          I watch car racing for the racing – as in the action of and happenings therein. Not the results.

          1. It seems I have to explain why I deliberately used the word ‘statistics’.
            You stated that you “prefer points”! I do not see the value in having points when a racewinner wins from a reversed grid and I see those points merely as ‘statistics’ (included in the official numbers, but not necessarily reflecting exciting actions). I want to see some action and drivers deserving their final position (not by coming in 10th and then avoiding the dirty air).

            Interestingly, based on your reply though it appears that you agree.
            Which brings me again to my original question: “DoeS it?”

            1. @coldfly I understand your point. However…
              I don’t see those points as statistics – I see them as an incentive to get and stay ahead of your opponents. The championship is centred around who has the most points – in that sense it doesn’t matter how or when they are won, only that they are won.
              I see little benefit in giving the fastest car the positional advantage of the front row and letting them drive away uncontested, while the slower cars start with a positional disadvantage and fall back. There are no exciting actions there either, and yet the winners are awarded full points. Drivers ‘deserve’ their final position by where they finish, not by where they start.
              And personally, I think a driver that starts 20th and wins deserves it more than the same driver starting on pole. But the only way that driver is going to start in 20th in F1 is to either have an (unlikely) issue in qualifying, or take part in a reverse grid race.

              And to answer your question: Does it work great in F2 with a partial reverse grid? Yes it does. It’s both a competitive and strategic challenge that drivers must face and overcome. The one who does it best gets the most points and becomes champion.
              I’d even suggest that anyone who doesn’t think it works does so on principle and preference, rather than practice.

    3. After complaining that everybody hates Russian drivers I don’t think Mazepin has the ability to learn from criticism.

      1. When born a billionaire and no one has ever disagreed with you in your life and everything is always possible and answered with a ‘yes’, there will be no connection with the real world. He has probably, in all his honesty, no clue what everyone is on about.

    4. The weekly irrelevant Mazepin post. The void after Maldonado had been difficult to fill, but finally F1 got its official pet hate object.

      1. Comparing Mazepin to Maldonado, I disliked Maldonado because of his acts of dangerous driving and not his off-track personality. I dislike Mazepin by both.

        1. I’m willing to reset the likability ‘bank balance’ now he enters F1.
          Though my expectations aren’t very high that it will result in a positive balance. But I’ll wait and see.

    5. I’ve commented for years on this site, can’t believe I actually got a COTD :) thanks Keith

      1. congrats, good one :)

    6. Mazepin? Can a Leopard ever change it’s spots?

      1. Indeed. It’s baffling why Raikkonen, after being thrown out of a strip club back in 2005 after exposing himself, is still in Formula 1. Very, very disappointing from McLaren, Ferrari, Lotus, Alfa Romeo, FIA and Liberty.

        1. It’s baffling that these people’s personalities and private actions are your concern. Or anyone else’s.

    7. So Mazepin is a victim now. I see Steiner knows his crisis communication 101 to protect the €€€.

    8. Oh dear. Imagine if Bernie Ecclestone was still in charge of F1. The ACTUAL GRAND PRIX would have been a reversed grid race. And he would have done it as well, he isn’t just saying this to wind people up; he introduced double points for the final race in 2014 despite the fact that 95% of F1 fans hated it. This has made me even more pleased that he’s gone than I was at the time.

      1. Bernie leaving F1 is a gift that keeps on giving, even though you need to master the concept of ‘opportunity costs’ to appreciate it.

      2. I honestly didn’t like the fastest lap point even it was post-Bernie.

      3. @f1frog Ask yourself, though – if Bernie had introduced it 15 years ago would you still be watching F1?
        Of course you would. We all would. And reverse grids would just be another part of ‘F1’s DNA’ now, like aerodynamic downforce, flappy-paddle gearboxes and cars the length of a 21-seat bus.

        1. Yes, I would probably be watching F1 if Bernie introduced it 15 years ago, but it might not be my ‘favourite’ motorsport. The thing that makes Formula 1 so unique is that it is ‘pure’ in my opinion. By this, I mean that there are no gimmicks to try and stop the best team winning. I know different people have different definitions of a pure motorsport, and for me, the things you mentioned do not dilute F1’s purity. I don’t mind rule changes, because I think the ‘best’ team should be able to adapt to different rules. And I don’t mind the budget cap either, because I think the ‘best’ team should be the one with the most intelligent and innovative car designers, the most skilled mechanics and the fastest drivers, and being the richest shouldn’t have anything to do with it. However, something like success ballast, or the topic of conversation, reverse grids, does dilute F1’s purity, because a team is simply punished for being the best, and some teams are given an unfair advantage over others, whereas all teams go into a new set of rules at the same point (unless they have been preparing for longer, in which case any of the teams could have done that).

          Now the purity of F1: the fact that every race is won by the best car/driver/team combination (obviously luck sometimes plays a role, such as Monza, but races like this are a very rare occurrence), is the reason why Formula 1 is the best motorsport. In my opinion, the second best is the BTCC, because it is the most entertaining by far, but it is, of course, not in any way pure. They have success ballast, reverse grids and even boost reduction. I don’t mind that the BTCC is not pure, because F1 is the pure motorsport, and other motorsports are all different. I think of F1 as like standard chess, and the other motorsports are all weird variations like atomic chess or antichess, which are often more entertaining, but will never be as good as standard, pure chess.

          Now I will go back to your original question, would I still be watching Formula 1 if Bernie had introduced reverse grids 15 years ago. I find it hard to relate to this question, because I have only watched F1 for ten years, and I was very young in 2011 and didn’t care about things like the purity of F1 (I remember seeing an article in Autosport about an idea for a race weekend format, with three random-grid sprint races before the Grand Prix and thinking it sounded brilliant. Now I think it would be horrific, and considerably worse even than reverse grids). So I instead have to imagine whether I would still watch F1 in 15 years time if reverse grids were introduced now. My answer is yes, I would never stop watching F1. Another thing that makes it the best motorsport is that it has the best drivers in the world, and that would probably not change. But rather than having F1 as my ‘main motorsport’ and the BTCC as my second favourite, the BTCC would probably instead be my favourite, because the racing would be far more exciting (even if F1 was reverse grid, the races would still not match the BTCC). And there would be no pure motorsports, so that factor could not be taken into account.

          1. Ok, please explain to me exactly what offended you so much about my comment. Maybe you don’t like that I mentioned only watching F1 for ten years, and not being a purist at first, but I think this is necessary for answering the question. Maybe you don’t like me mentioning my opinions about what I personally would like, in terms of F1 vs BTCC. This is not like ranking the drivers, where views have to be entirely objective. Discussing whether or not reverse grids are a good idea requires a personal opinion, as it is about whether you think YOU would want it. You also mentioned that the comment pages are toxic. I assume you are referring to my comment as an example of this, as you have replied to it, and there was absolutely nothing toxic in my comment (I don’t think, but if you think there is you should point out what it was exactly), and actually your reply was extremely toxic. As for ‘martyrs to the cult of personality,’ I have no idea what your getting at here.

            You say that you wish you could have a chat with people on here. Many users of this site often have long, constructive discussions about F1. Maybe you could too, by replying with your own opinions about reverse grids and why you disagree with mine, instead of writing short, toxic replies that are exactly like the ones you seem to dislike, based on your description of the comment pages.

          2. @f1frog Fair enough. Appreciate your honesty.
            Personally, I don’t think F1 would be any less ‘pure’ just by reversing the grid – it would merely be different than it currently is in terms of how the grid is set. And given how many times that has changed since I started watching in the 80’s, I don’t think there is any one single ‘right’ and ‘pure’ way to do it.
            The ‘best’ team could still win on the day, they’d just have to do it on the track during the GP rather than beginning with an advantage gained during qualifying.
            The racing would still be ‘pure.’ I use inverted commas on ‘pure’ as I don’t really think F1 is any more pure than any other motorsports category, btw. It just uses a different set of regulations. I really don’t see the harm in potentially improving the quality of the racing action/visual spectacle for the greater good of F1 as a whole. We all want to see cars fighting with each other and swapping positions – racing… This is just one way to make it happen a little more.
            And much like the halo, after a while most people wouldn’t even think twice about it.

        2. S One way I look at it though is that I think the teams would still have been just as against reverse grids 15 years ago as they have now recently rejected them. So if BE were to have brought this in it would have been in a dictatorial manner, and I think that would have turned off a lot of fans, who I think just like the teams, would not want it, even if a survey would show people saying yes I would still watch. Yes, some would. But the question is how many?

          So for me what helps a great deal is that as Liberty explores a bit for potential added excitement, they are going about it in a diplomatic way. They are asking for, not demanding, a trial. Just a trial. After all the good they’re doing for F1, I don’t mind this ask one bit. It helps me a great deal with these kinds of ideas if all the teams have been asked, involved in the discussions so they can raise all angles and aspects of the concept as they see them, and then if they still all agree then I’m far more willing to go along with what they collectively think is the way to go.

          Ultimately, taking it to an extreme, we fans are the boss. If suddenly 400 million or so fans boycotted F1 over an unpopular idea, they’d change their minds faster than you can blink.

          1. I don’t think democracy is a very good leadership method for F1. It’s a very inward looking system, and it looks to me that Liberty are doing things to please the teams more than anyone else.
            If they had the greatest plan in the world to improve F1 and set it up for future growth but a few teams didn’t like it, it would be rejected. That isn’t right.
            Just imagine if all the workers in a factory were given equal say in how the company is run. It would grind to a halt and go under in no time – and that’s exactly the risk F1 is taking by giving its participants the power to shape the future. I’m envisioning ‘The Homer’ – Homer’s own car design from the Simpsons…
            The real killer is that most teams come and go… They have no interest in what F1 looks like when they are no longer in it – they are only interested in what it is like *right now* and for as much of the future as they plan to be involved.

            1. S I disagree. If Liberty were doing things to please the teams more than anyone else, they’d still be spending their way into oblivion, no doubt still pursuing the harmful-to-close-racing science of aero downforce to which they have invested billions over the years. And F1 would be in peril.

              As I see what played out once Liberty took over, the teams were not given equal say, able to reject the greatest plan in the world. Rather, Liberty and Brawn, as the new bosses, said look we all know the big issues here, and there has to be a new direction going forward, we all know it. Here’s what we want to do. Let’s discuss. Oh Ferrari you say you want nothing to change? (not saying they did entirely but just as an example) Sorry but that’s a non-starter. Change there will be, so let’s take all your individual needs and desires, try to keep you happy with as much as those as possible, but ultimately the main goal must collectively be a less expensive to play in F1 that doesn’t give all the power to the top four teams, that doesn’t bury and even end the lesser teams, and that has the cars far less harmed in dirty air, or else we’ll all be out of jobs. Those are the parameters, now let’s hammer this all out until everyone is as happy as possible and accepting that no one team is going to get all they would prefer that they had become accustomed to under BE.

              Your factory workers scenario doesn’t apply. You’re making them the bosses. They’re not. Nor are the teams in F1. What Brawn said from the outset was that he wanted to include them all, and for them to all collectively agree to a new direction as much as reasonably possible, so that going forward we’d have a happy and healthy F1 from which to grow. And that’s what we have. They even unanimously agreed to the engine freeze knowing that is the best way for the next few years until 2025.

              Most teams come and go? Sure maybe the stats are pretty high with usually lesser teams doing that, but of course you can’t say the same for Ferrari, Williams, McLaren, Mercedes, Renault, Red Bull…you know, the solid mainstays. Going forward, as agreed by all the times buying into the new direction, I think the coming and going will diminish, and in fact if Liberty and the teams have their way 2 or 3 more should come when it will be more attractive to do so from a financial and competitive standpoint.

    9. BE and his funny suggestions, although fair enough for providing an honest answer to a question.

    10. If we had competition at the front of the field we wouldn’t need any of these ridiculous solutions to make the sport interesting.

      The reason people are losing or have lost interest is because Mercedes are about to dominate for 8 years in a row. 2020 Merc was equal to any of the most dominant cars in the history of the sport but Mercedes have had 4 in 7 years. And even then, the most competitive seasons of the hybrid era (2018) was only slightly more competitive than 2001 which is considered by many people as a “dominant” Ferrari season.

      Ferrari twice in 5 seasons had a dominant car but still not to the degree that Mercedes was dominant. Red Bull only dominant in 2011 and the second half of 2013 when teams gave up to commit to the hybrid era in 2014. Mercedes get front row lockouts and 1-2 finishes at will. 71 front row finishes in their era compared to Ferrari who had a mere 15.

      Allow teams to catch up or neutralise Mercedes advantages as we the FIA do to Ferrari and Red Bull.

      I guarantee if Vettel was in the Merc and Merc won 7 of the last 7 titles the FIA wouldn’t have tolerated the dominance.

      1. I guarantee if Vettel was in the Merc and Merc won 7 of the last 7 titles the FIA wouldn’t have tolerated the dominance.

        How would you guarantee that? @DeanFranklin
        Or is it just a reflection of your dislike of one specific driver?

        But leaving that part (your insistence to play the man rather than the ball) aside, I don’t want to see my sport (or any sport) in which the regulator artificially handicaps the front runner. They should merely provide a level playing field which explicitly includes how much money flow back to the teams.
        You don’t want a top football team to play with one man less. It’s for the other teams to catch up by working harder and/or smarter.

        1. @coldfly Just seeing your post once I posted mine, and I agree, except I suppose as I opine below that yes it is up to the other teams to catch up, until enough time goes by that nobody does, and then they change the regs out of a need to diminish the predictability.

      2. Dean F It’s always a balance though. They have to allow teams the freedom to do their thing such that yeah sometimes a team nails it and dominates, and that is the nature of a non-spec series.

        I know you have used more than once the front row lock out at Mercedes vs Ferrari as a measure, but the Ferrari situation was different as no team has ever ignored the needs of the second driver more than Ferrari did when MS was there. Barrichello was literally under contract to not compete. MS himself dominated every bit as much as LH/NR did and then LH alone with VB being much weaker than Nico. But anyway that not need be the focus here.

        Because F1 is a non-spec series, sometimes a team dominates for a stretch, and then the rules are changed in a big way once they see the audience dwindle, and that usually upsets the apple cart and ends the string of domination. That is about to happen next year, on paper at least. Who knows if Mercedes will still be the bar to which everyone else will still have to raise themselves, but as I see it these badly needed changes were necessary Mercedes domination aside. And I believe that we have seen the last of the long runs of domination by any one team. I believe LH’s records, with MS up there too as being in a club of their own, will never be beaten. The wholly new regs will see to it that teams will be much closer to each other, and the drivers are going to have much more say on the track with their performances than has been the case for decades, with dirty air being so harmful to a driver’s confidence in his car. I believe the WDC’s earned come 2022 and onward will be harder earned by the drivers. I believe a driver in the second best WCC car will have a better chance than has been the case for decades by now, at winning the WDC. This new format to me should do a much better job at separating the men from the boys in other words.

        So to me that responds to your first, and accurate sentence above.

        Your last sentence? I think you could put any driver’s name in there, and any teams’ name in there, not just Vettel’s nor Mercedes, and yes they’ve known for years now that these long runs of domination are not ideal. But yet they also know they have to let a team that nails their package reap the rewards for that, and hope that someone else catches up and competes, before they have to take the measure of drastic regs changes.

        1. @robbie I couldn’t agree more with you. I agree that LH’s records (including the likely record-breaking 8th WDC) will be harder to reach from next year onwards with the budget cap that will have been in place for a year and the new technical regulations intended to make following another car easier.

      3. @Dean F Ferrari’s win percentage (the most accurate and fair method of measuring team dominance in a season) in 2002 was the same as for Mercedes in 2016 (all bar two races), and 2004 to 2014-2015 (all bar three). Last season’s equivalent for Mercedes was lower than the above ones (all bar four), so less dominant. Mclaren MP4/4 is still the outright most dominant F1 car to date, after all. Mercedes only won 11 out of 21 in 2018. Vettel’s unforced errors led to Hamilton eventually running away with the WDC, nothing else. 15 out of 21 the following season. Nevertheless, pointless to diminish the Ferrari dominance since that was literally a one-driver dominance, which is worse than two drivers winning regularly a la 2014-2016.

        1. “Ferrari’s win percentage (the most accurate and fair method of measuring team dominance in a season) in 2002 was the same as for Mercedes in 2016 (all bar two races), and 2004 to 2014-2015 (all bar three). ”

          Ferrari in 2002 didn’t have anything the pace advantage over the competition that Mercedes had 2014-16. Ferrari was dominant, but nothing like Mercedes. Montoya had 7 poles for crying out loud. Schumacher was at the top of his game and that made the difference.

          The Merc is so good Russell can get in and dominate with no preparation, Rosberg was able to win a title.

      4. Dave (@davewillisporter)
        20th February 2021, 18:48

        The FIA started changing after Mosley left. He used to do things like introduce one tyre set per race under the auspices of cost control when in actual fact is was to trip up Ferrari. Bernie was also notorious for interfering with teams. Liberty doesn’t.
        Redbull kept getting its wings clipped because it was coming up with illegal solutions like its flexible front wing with springs inside not because of an effort to equalise performance.
        Mercedes have never been accused of running illegal tech. They have had FRIC, DAS and quali mode banned for cost reasons, which slowed them down. The reason they are dominant is because of excellence on their part and incompetence on the part of their competitors.

        1. Without FIA meddling, Ferrari would have only continued improving, wouldn’t have had to scrape through with the championship in 2003, would have competed 2005, probably won in 2006 because they wouldn’t have been coming off such a low base in 2005, Schumacher would have been kept on and they win 2007 and 2008.

          So Schumacher probably should be on 9 championships and have 120 wins which is like 125 wins with 23 races seasons, etc.

    11. I know this is a taste thing but I do not understand how someone comes up with a design like Latifi’s helmet. There is a hex pattern, black and blue squiggles, white and red squiggles (I might be missing some sort of meaning on the squiggles, I’m sorry), a maple leaf, the Toronto skyline in silver, a whole bunch of pointy shapes and all this before all the logos that go on top. I don’t mean to pick on him specifically, all the drivers have a similar approach at the moment.

      With the danger of sounding like an old person complaining that it used to be better, how can a design like this compare to helmets like Villeneuve’s multicolored V one, or Senna’s classic yellow and green? Isn’t the idea that you should have a design that is recognisable from inside the car?

      1. I think that the idea is you can see interesting details from close up, and with HD in car views, but the wider pattern is visible from a far while the details drop out Konstantinos. For Vettel’s current design that works superbly, but the others are mostly just not as good. Can’t all be classics, right?

        1. It’s a good point about HD, it had not occurred to me. I guess you also see the helmets up close more than previously because of the on board cameras where you see the drivers head. To be honest a lot of it is taste, I personally like the solid colour simple designs more, when done well they look like the whole helmet is a logo in itself rather than a surface for logos to exist on if that makes any sense. I’m sure the more elaborate designs work for other people more.

        2. Completely agree with that. I have been watching F1 since 1979 and I do remember the designs of many helmets. They were much easier to remember and bring up in your memory, you could literally describe what they would look like and even draw them to a certain extent. Of course nowadays the helmets are much like pieces of art, which are amazing to look at, but to me most helmets are indeed not as you refer to as classics.

          I had the opportunity to be able to come up with a design for my karting helmet along the same philosophy. The designer/painter I contacted is indeed someone sharing the same idea’s that it is absolutely fantastic to make a superbly complex helmet design, which everybody will admire in amazement. But the helmets that stand out are the ones with a timeless painting scheme, that you could look at for a few minutes and then being able to recall that in your memory hours/days/weeks later.

    12. Fans: I want irreverent drivers
      computer says no.

    13. Mazepin has to learn there is a lot of hate out there.

    Comments are closed.