“Big effort” at Williams factory to replace parts after two Imola crashes

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Williams has been working flat-out to replace the parts which were destroyed when both their drivers crashed out of the last race.

In brief

Williams aim to rebound from Imola setbacks

George Russell’s collision with Valtteri Bottas in the Emilia-Romagna Grand prix ended Williams’ involvement in the race, as Nicholas Latifi had already gone out in a first-lap collision with Nikita Mazepin.

“The result in Imola was disappointing and has required a big effort from the factory to recover our stock of parts” said the team’s head of vehicle performance Dave Robson. “Fortunately, there were a lot of good things from the weekend too and we are now in Portugal looking forward to building on the progress made last time out.”

Following an uncompetitive start to the season in Bahrain, Williams were encouraged to see both their drivers reach Q2 last weekend, a result they intend to build on this weekend.

“We hope that the FW43B will work well here, allowing us to build on the performance that we showed in Imola,” said Robson. “We have plenty of work to get through on Friday, primarily focussing on the tyres, but we are looking forward to the challenge.”

Mercedes had ‘Get out of Jail Free” card – Wolff

Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Imola, 2021
Hamilton salvaged second after costly error
Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff said he feels fortunate the team is still ahead in the points standings after the problems they encountered at Imola. Bottas retired shortly after Lewis Hamilton lost a lap by skidding off the track, though the subsequent red flag allowed the world champion to unlap himself.

“Imola was a crazy race and the kind of grand prix that lives long in the memory,” said Wolff. “There were so many ups and downs and there were a few moments where it felt like we wouldn’t score any points at all. It was a rollercoaster of emotions, from the disappointment of Valtteri’s scary accident to the thrill of Lewis’ recovery drive.

“To come away leading both championships almost felt like a get out of jail free card, because our rivals didn’t maximise the opportunity we gave them. And it just proves what a challenging season we have ahead of us and how quickly things can turn around in Formula 1.”

Wolff believes the team may face competition from teams besides Red Bull this weekend. “We’re expecting another close fight with Red Bull, and both McLaren and Ferrari could also be in the mix too,” he said.

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

Mark Webber and Valtteri Bottas had the unenviable jobs of being team mates to multiple champions, but the Red Bull driver fared better, argues @Fer-no65:

My argument, fan-stuff aside, is that Webber pushed Vettel harder than Bottas pushes Hamilton. If we were to compare him with someone, I’d say he’s more of a Rosberg in his relationship with Hamilton: not as good, but managed to get in the way, and tried everything, whatever it cost, to beat him.

The difference with him and Rosberg is that Rosberg got lucky that his battles with Hamilton happened when no one else could even fight for wins. Webber fought during arguably the most competitive fields we’ve seen in the last two decades or so. Remember 2010 and 2012 the championships were incredibly tight, with Renault/Lotus, McLaren, Mercedes and Ferrari all battling Red Bull on merit, and sometimes beating them.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Russell G., Varun, Krtekf1, Muz and Tez!

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

  • 25 years ago today Jacques Villeneuve scored his first Formula 1 victory at the Nurburgring, resisting Michael Schumacher over the final laps

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.

53 comments on ““Big effort” at Williams factory to replace parts after two Imola crashes”

  1. That comment about only seeing broadcasters or F1 employees talk up the quali race format seems to ring true for the Formula 2 weekend reformat this season as well.

    Lots of self congratulating and hyping up their own product and a blind eye turned to any criticisms.

    1. I do not like the Q4 aspect, But having watched F1’s youtube promo, 100km ( 20+laps) no mandated (or likely) tyre changes, I have come to the conclusion that the Saturday race will be better viewing than Sunday’s. My hope is that this format will be so popular that F1 will revert to the traditional (pre Bernie gimmicks) format.
      Further to above, watching some of the Monaco Historique on youtube confirmed my view that; despite the cars being slower, the racing was more exciting pre 1990, no rose tinted spectacles required.

      1. @hohum I don’t agree, I think the Saturday gimmick race will be far worse than Sunday’s as not only are drivers likely to be more conservative to not risk unnecessary damage which may cost them time but it’s just going to be like the opening stint of a GP which virtually always ends up been the least interesting, Most static & forgettable part of the GP.

        Under normal conditions I just honestly can’t see the gimmick race been anything other than very static & uninteresting to watch compared to the actually often extremely exciting real qualifying session which many (Myself included) will not be able to watch live due to been at work on Fridays.

        It is a complete & utter farcical joke of an artificial gimmick.

        1. I fear it might actually be even “worth” than a static race. They have picked tracks with good chance of overtaking (for a reason) but I don’t expect drivers to take too much risks. The most likely is then to have drivers out of position because they screw up qualifying getting back in position by cutting through the field DRS assisted. Yes, it will lead to some overtakes but artificial ones, and it will deprive us from having drivers out of position on Sunday’s race. Kill 2 races with one stone!

          1. @jeanrien As you point out they have chosen circuits where overtaking is easier but this is counter intuitive to me. If the circuit is easy (relative term) to overtake on then drivers will be less likely to take risks on Saturday since you may as well do the same move on Sunday instead where there is much more to be gained (eg more points).

            Why take a risk on Saturday if your ‘reward’ for getting it wrong could be non-participation on Sunday

          2. This is my point, they won’t take risk but if you have a Mercedes or RedBull at the back, they can get close and use DRS to regain a lot of positions and have a much improved position come Sunday.
            Except for those, I don’t expect much movement in the midfield except if there is a significant pace delta in race trim.
            Thinking about it, Sprint race will also negate any super quali from some drivers as it will be harder for them to defend position during sprint + normal race.
            It doesn’t matter how I run the scenario in my head, there are far more cons than pros.
            Should we also name that points for the first three, looking at past years, this will just reinforce Mercedes RedBull dominance in current context.

        2. it’s just going to be like the opening stint of a GP which virtually always ends up been the least interesting

          @roger-ayles, I don’t agree, I find the middle part the most boring. Even with the forced tyre changes it does not match up to the initial laps and the possible fight for position and points at the end.

          Shortening the middle part could be a master stroke to deliver a more exciting race.
          I hope though that @hohum is wrong as I don’t won’t FOM to reconsider the length of the race proper. But maybe they can just pick the exciting parts and add that to the new aero formula.

          1. someone or something
            28th April 2021, 14:16


            I don’t agree, I find the middle part the most boring. Even with the forced tyre changes it does not match up to the initial laps and the possible fight for position and points at the end.

            Shortening the middle part could be a master stroke to deliver a more exciting race.

            Sounds good, but I just don’t see it happening that way.
            In fact, as with every case of (attempted) cherrypicking, we’re not going to end up with all the good parts and less of the rest. I believe we’re going to end up with a start phase and nothing but ‘middle part’ for the rest of the sprint race, minus pit stops. In other words: most likely a procession.

            I believe you were thinking of F2-style sprint races, but those were different because they actually offered an incentive for drivers to fight until the end: Points galore. Also, there was no knock-on effect in case something went wrong. If you spun, your race was ruined, end of story. But an F1-style sprint race not only offers a negligible incentive in terms of points (which are out of reach for two thirds of the grid anyways), it also punishes mistakes twice by ruining the sprint race AND the grid position for the race with the big points.

      2. someone or something
        28th April 2021, 1:46


        I have come to the conclusion that the Saturday race will be better viewing than Sunday’s

        That obviously remains to be seen, but I can’t quite bring up the same amount of optimism. What variables, what incentives are there that might encourage intense racing after the first few laps? Rewards are minimal with just 3 points-scoring places, and outside of the top 3, fighting for positions might not offer enough of a reward under normal circumstances, as an improvement by a single grid spot will be measured against significant risks of losing much more than that. Without any sort of strategy, we might see an energetic opening lap, followed by cars mostly holding their positions and avoiding trouble.

        My hope is that this format will be so popular that F1 will revert to the traditional (pre Bernie gimmicks) format.

        Pre-Bernie? Where does that take us? 1982?
        As stated above, the exact opposite might happen, and the need for (albeit contrived) different tyre strategies could become more apparent than ever.

        1. What variables, what incentives are there that might encourage intense racing after the first few laps? Rewards are minimal with just 3 points-scoring places

          I think you underestimate the eagerness and competitiveness of those 20 F1 drivers.
          None of them has an Accounting Masters.

          1. But their team does, and ultimately they decide when to push or back off – not the drivers.

          2. someone or something
            28th April 2021, 14:07

            As “S” rightly says, the drivers won’t go into the sprint race unbriefed and unaffected by team radio. Even now, in the ‘normal’ races, drivers regularly avoid fighting for positions when it’s doubtful they’ll gain a lasting advantage from it. It happens all the time, e.g. when a faster car is temporarily within striking distance, or when a longer stint is planned, and the benefits of track position are weighed against increased tyre wear.

            Sprint races are going a lot like that, if you’re outside the top 3 (or maybe up to top 6, depending on the race situation). Your final track position isn’t the only thing that counts, it’s how you get there. And, seeing as the race doesn’t quite end at the chequered flag, but is continued on Sunday, squeezing into a position before the end of the race at all cost isn’t a sustainable approach. Even if a driver was in 4th place, in striking distance to 3rd, that one extra point may not be worth the risk of a last-lap lunge, because a spin or collision might cost much more than that. Same reason we’re not seeing all the front-runners attacking the fastest lap at all races. Sometimes, a single point just isn’t worth the risk.

            Additionally, there might be another parallel to ekeing out a stint: With an expected length of circa 20 laps and free tyre choice (?), starting on the softest compound sounds like the logical choice, because it offers the best grip during the phase in which most positions can be gained or lost. This front-heavy approach could however mean that, depending on the track, the sprint race may be a bit on the longer side tyre-wise. Which is another reason for me to expect cars cruising around and holding position once the dust has settled after the start. You want to be able to react in case a competitor decides to mount a lat charge, or someone has risked starting on a more durable tyre, and is getting stronger with every passing lap.

          3. @unregistered and @unregistered, this is exactly why it’s a test.
            Notwithstanding most here, I will give my opinion about Sprint Qualifying after the fact.

            PS – I would mandate medium tyres, or at least hard enough the can push the whole 20 laps.

          4. @coldfly – Pushing the whole 20 laps – hope that happens. I hope there’s no fuel limitation (though running light might give an advantage in the initial 10 laps or so) and I hope the limited parts such as the PU and gearbox can withstand this additional wear and tear. Don’t want a failure on Sunday thanks to the additional effort on Saturday.

          5. I hope there’s no fuel limitation

            They might even consider requiring all teams to start with at least (say) 40kg.

            Of course any damage on Saturday should be able to be repaired for Sunday, but a rule like that already exists in Parc Fermé.
            For wear and tear I don’t have another solution than what they have now (certain amount allowed, rest comes with penalty). This one of the reasons they should have announced this last year, so all teams could include these sessions in their wear and tear models.

      3. @hohum I could obviously be wrong but I can’t see a scenario where the sprint race is better than the GP as it’s going to be lacking the things which tend to help provide action over a GP. Most of the action in a GP tends to come from strategy. Cars on different compounds, Cars on tyres at different stages of wear due to the pit cycle & later in a race different levels of management.

        I just can’t see a shorter 15-20 lap race with no strategy been anything other that relatively static. Especially when you throw in that there is far more risk than reward which may well result in drivers been more conservative than they would be in the GP.

        In the full GP if you pick up damage in the opening 20 laps you have time to recover & with points down to 10th you still have a good possibility to get something for your effort. You don’t have that in a shorter 15-20 laps sprint. You pick up damage you don’t have the time to recover & with points only for the top 3 you have less to gain. I can see drivers who suffer damage & need to pit just parking the car to keep some miles off the engine/gearbox etc.. Why finish the race & put that extra wear on the car if you have nothing to gain.

        I just see far more negatives to the plan than positives & the more details they release & the more I read the more negatives I see. At this point I really don’t see any real positives in the plan from a sporting/track action perspective & believe me i’ve tried to find some.

        1. @stefmeister I agree, especially when you consider the tendency of F1 teams to be conservative, even in situations where the rules have been designed to encourage risk-taking.

          Consider, for instance, the rapidly degrading Pirelli tyres we got at the start of the last decade. It was anticipated that this would spice things up by encouraging teams to be more aggressive with pit strategy. Instead virtually everyone adopted a strategy of trying to eke out the tyres as much as possible, to minimise the number of pit stops that were necessary.

          There is nothing about this sprint race plan that would encourage someone to push hard and take risks. Most will probably be incentivised to consolidate the position they got in qualifying.

        2. someone or something
          28th April 2021, 9:40


          I can see drivers who suffer damage & need to pit just parking the car to keep some miles off the engine/gearbox etc.. Why finish the race & put that extra wear on the car if you have nothing to gain.

          That may be the case for the Williamses and Haases (or whoever ends up at the back of the grid), as they have very little to gain in a sprint race. Points are pretty much out of reach for anyone not starting in the top 10, and even if they gain a few places, they’re very likely to lose them quickly in the main race.
          So, unless the FIA implements some sort of deterrent, we might see backmarkers retiring early on, as the entire session is pointless (literally and figuratively) for them.

          For the cars further up the order, however, retiring would be a bad idea. As far as I know, the results of the sprint race determine the grid on Sunday. Retiring from 10th place, for example, would be a major setback in that case, and I doubt the reduced mileage on critical components makes it worthwile. It’s probably still smarter to wait for a bad qualifying late in the season to change engine components and incur a meaningless grid penalty.
          However, I can see cars retiring early if they spin or collide and are unlikely to make up many places.

          But for the rest, I think cruising around several seconds off the pace while holding positions is the most sensible approach after the dust has settled. 2 or 3 seconds behind the car in front should be far enough to keep all systems cool and the tyres from degrading too soon, and close enough to strike, in case the car ahead runs into trouble.

          1. For the cars further up the order, however, retiring would be a bad idea. As far as I know, the results of the sprint race determine the grid on Sunday. Retiring from 10th place, for example, would be a major setback in that case,

            I was thinking more about if a driver suffers damage & has to pit & ends up miles behind the rest of the field. Think something along the lines of losing a front wing on the 1st lap, Suffering a puncture or something & ending up 30+ seconds behind the pack.

            In the GP it’s worth pushing on in that scenario as you have enough time to catch the field & work your way towards the points. But in a shorter 15-20 lap race that becomes less possible.

          2. someone or something
            28th April 2021, 13:43

            Yes, I mentioned that possibility further down in my comment as well.

    2. I agree, but at least some of the independent F1 journos are making their thoughts known.

      Contrast with the decision to race in Saudi Arabia, which no one (including the “independents”) seems to want to touch with a bargepole.

      Bernie was notorious for threatening to revoke the accreditation of journalists who were too critical. I wonder if Liberty is doing something similar with regard to the calendar plans.

    3. Less aero, more drag, more power is the solution, not this gimmickery. What a nonsense they are trying all the time. That is because the prime objective is money, not racing.

      1. @stefmeister, @roger-ayles, et al, Well maybe, let’s see ! Also many of the comments seem to suggest that the cars will be in “parc ferme” between the sprint race and the main event, if so I would agree the drivers will be very careful, my assumption is the teams will be able to repair/re-build between races. My opinion is that the sprint will be more like the last 20 laps after a safety car, everybody on new tyres, rather than the 1st or 2nd 20 of a 60 lap GP.

  2. Wonder what Disney’s plans are for the sports channels in Asia, will everything go onto the Disney+ platform I wonder? Live streaming?

    1. Possibly (I’d subscribe to Disney+ if that happened), but perhaps it opens the door for F1TV.

    2. From the article it does indeed seem that they are looking to wind up their TV channels and instead do the streaming Disney+ thing for more content @jaymenon10, @krichelle.

      I guess that means either F1TV or (depending on the deals they have with F1) a disney subscription?

    3. Marinated Monolith (@)
      28th April 2021, 8:29

      That seems to be the likeliest option, as I understand that’s how Disney+ and Hotstar have been in operating in India for a while. Although it might be nice to hear from someone who actually lives there as this is only secondhand info.

      I’m pretty sure they’re going to add another subscription tier (or jack up the price entirely) if they do this though, as annual subscription to Disney+ in Indonesia merely costs an equivalent of $14.

      Per F1’s official website, Fox has a deal in place with F1 up until the 2022 season, so even if another channel wanted to snap up the TV rights, it’s not gonna happen until 2023 at the earliest.

      1. This will be a big blow to the Satellite TV operators.

        But yes F1TV will be a most likely option for F1, however, we should not forget that Fox Sports broadcasts a whole host of other sports as well.

      2. I’m hoping that the sprint races will be free-to-air as promotional bait for the GP.

  3. I see that despite DRS been far too powerful at Portimou last year they have not only not shortened the main zone but have also added a completely unnecessary 2nd zone.

    It is more clear than ever that they don’t care because it’s obviously just all about quantity over quality. As long as they get a high passing stat to thrown out after the race they don’t care how boringly easy the push of a button highway passes are. It’s like a nascar plate race, They throw around the 100 lead changes stat & how it’s a new record up from the year before but totally ignore how irrelevant a stat it actually is on those plate tracks.

    It’s just all about the quantity & that is what is wrong with the sport.

    1. They feared we would not get any overtaking at Portimão and that the drs would not suffice, grumpy Brundle was proven wrong. let’s add another just to make sure a car out of order can get another chance of a free overtake.
      It’s all about the top teams, the drs or mdrs it is only long enough for mercedes powered cars, just makes things more predictable, that “costly” mistake was rendered meaningless because Ham blew everyone away on the drs. Qualifying benefits quicker cars by giving them a better tyre allocation for the race, no refuelling means less strategy or pit mistakes, and list goes on. top teams will only approve what suits them. new sprint race saves a top team from a bad qualifying, say weather hit quali.

      1. @peartree
        HAM didn’t pass them immediately, though, so not down to DRS.
        DRS zone on the 2nd straight is unlikely to make a difference anyway because of its shortness, so no point in complaining.
        Refuelling was detrimental to on-track overtaking.
        How do quicker cars get better tyre allocation?
        The Q2 rule affects them, so more like the opposite.

        1. @jerejj you are right Ham’s mistake was really “costly” he only managed to end exactly where he was, not down to drs but down to every other merc car letting him by. Often the point of a 2nd drs is to make sure the driver “out of position” is close enough to get the free pass.
          refuelling was as detrimental to on-track racing as the current tyre regulation is, the same “flaws” (excuses) top teams used are in play, teams just undercut, overcut or use drs for overtaking.
          Quicker cars can use less tyres in Q and the fastest cars amongst the top 10 are the most likely to be able to start on a preferred tyre. Qualifying should set the grid not decide the outcome of the race.

        2. Refuelling wasn’t detrimental to on-track overtaking – the cars were detrimental to on-track overtaking.
          It’s easy to confuse the two – but without refuelling we still have rubbish ‘racing’ and now also with hardly any strategy diversity, and drivers who drive around at 70% pace trying to make the tyres last longer.

    2. @roger-ayles Source? FIA hasn’t released the official track map yet. I’m happy if the 2nd longest straight would indeed have an activation zone like it should’ve last time already. How is it unnecessary when it most likely won’t increase overtaking anyway because of its shortness (similar length to Montmelo’s T9-T10 straight)?

      1. @roger-ayles
        No need anymore as I found articles. Based on what I read, the S/F straight zone will be 120 meters shorter than last year.

        1. @jerejj My bad. I had got it from something Sky had posted which seems like it may have been wrong.

  4. I just don’t understand why so many fans are upset or complaining over the new Saturday sprint qualifying format! I’ve been following F1 close to 15 years now, and absolutely love the Saturday 3 session qualifying format. However, when someone is offering an extra race with the same teams/drivers on top of all the current formats and is making my weekend even more exciting and bigger for absolutely free (at the moment), I would say thank you very much! I don’t care if it works or not, if the racing is conservative/aggressive, points, blah blah blah… its another chance to see these top drivers go at each other. If the people in F1 are not complaining, the ones who actually need to plan a bunch of logistics on top of their tight schedules/budgets, why would a racing fan complain! I just don’t get it! Just grab some popcorn, sit back on your couch and enjoy the show!

  5. To come away leading both championships almost felt like a get out of jail free card, because our rivals didn’t maximise the opportunity we gave them.

    🤔 Who didn’t maximise their opportunity really? When you have the pace to carve through the field to regain second position with less than half the race distance remaining, I doubt there’s much opportunity there for other teams to maximise.

    1. He is talking about RBR not getting 1-2, particularly Perez.

      1. someone or something
        28th April 2021, 9:49

        The furtive Pérez, so easily forgotten …
        Pérez was indeed in a great position to score major points from 4th place at the restart, and he might’ve acted as a roadblock to halt Hamilton’s progress on top of that. But, considering how quickly he spun it away, he was out of sight, out of mind for most, including myself.

  6. The channel closures are absolutely horrible. I watch F1 on Fox Sports, and this is the only channel here that covers the sport.

  7. Re COTD: I agree on the driver comparison, but Renault/Lotus and Mercedes weren’t necessarily battling RB on merit in 2010 and 2012. Definitely not ‘regularly’ like Ferrari and Mclaren.

    How could things suddenly change for the Canadian GP this late? F1 getting exempted from the quarantine requirement would be somewhat unfair as other sports (or anyone else for that matter) haven’t got the same exemption AFAIA.
    Also how unwilling the upper levels have seemed to be with letting many travelling F1 people in the country.
    Time is still running out.

  8. Regarding Keith’s tweet about how few are speaking up for Qualifying Sprint races – it’s interesting to see the overwhelming negativity towards this format on this page. In contrast, all my friends who watch F1 (who are, to be fair, not long-time viewers but fairly recent joiners) seem to be excited, or at least curious.

    I just don’t know enough about it to have a firm opinion on the topic yet, but I suspect Keith’s echo chamber theory may have some merit.

    1. @alvarius It also supports something I was saying a few weeks ago about this change – it is not meant to appeal to the established fans, but to bring in new ones. Liberty can safely disregard the views of existing fans as they know we will probably end up watching anyway, but the desire to “improve the product” is all about attracting people who are relatively new to the sport or haven’t watched it before. Your friends are exactly the target audience for this change, whereas many of the cantankerous old people who use this site (myself included) are not.

      Same as with Drive to Survive, which we know has been very successful in bringing new fans to F1, even as the reviews from established fans have been mixed (personally I think it’s very good, but I know not everyone agrees).

      It is a similar impulse to the one that led to the abortive European Super League in football (and the Hundred in cricket) – changing the product in order to attract new fans in the face of vehement opposition from existing ones. However I think Sprint Qualifying will ultimately be less damaging to the fundamentals of the sport than either of those two examples.

      1. I think that’s spot on, Andy. I think you can see the exact same lines being drawn with issues such as whether or not F1 cars should have DRS – purists will almost always argue against DRS on the basis that it is “artificial”, while the Drive to Survive crowd would be happy to accept DRS if it results in an “improved product” (whatever that is).

        I am, like you, not that concerned about the potentially damaging effect of sprint qualifying. A safer way to test the format would obviously have been to hold test races where no points are earned, but my impression is that such efforts were unsuccessful as teams were not willing to agree, as their perceived gains were outweighed by the (financial) risks. On the other hand, I am not sure the outcome of the tests would persuade many of the current opponents of sprint races, no matter how they turn ut.

      2. @red-andy

        Liberty can safely disregard the views of existing fans as they know we will probably end up watching anyway,

        Ask nascar how that works out.

        The more they changed the more of the longtime/dedicated fanbase they ended up losing & the newer fans they aimed to bring in didn’t stick around long term. They have ended up in a situation where circuits that once had to build new stands due to the demand for tickets are now having to tear them down to make the places look less empty because of how much interest has declined.

        If F1 goes too far with these artificial gimmicks the same will happen. The longtime fans will walk away & the casual fans that replace them won’t stick around leaving the sport as a whole with a smaller, less engaged audience.

        I already know people who were so turned off by the DRS/Cheese tire gimmicks that they no longer watch, I myself am on the verge of doing the same. In just my circle of friends/family thats 10-15 people who used to regularly attend races & watch ever other race live on TV which the sport has lost to the gimmicks & it’s hard to win them back once you have lost them.

        1. @roger-ayles Of course you are conveniently skipping the fact that the audience had already started to decline in NASCAR, which is why they started to make changes. Of course changes are not always going to be as effective as they would like, they being any racing series, but it is disingenuous of you to make it sound like it was the changes that caused the audience decline. Thank goodness F1 is using a trial to see what the reaction will be. Thank goodness they are trying things to grow the audience and therefore the sport.

    2. @alvarius Whenever I posted a neutral or curious positive comment on sprint races in the past, I was quickly shouted down by the negative comments. Similar things have happened in the past, where every change is met with negativity and “preserving the purity of the sport” types of comments. Wether it’s engine formula’s, aero regulations, a new race, the mere idea of change to the race weekend, safety measures like the halo, it’s all just a big mess of negativity and purism.

      And it’s made me not want to weigh in these kinds of topics, ever again. F1 fans shouldn’t be consulted on changes to the sport, and their opinions are almost always worse than the changes made. Liberty would do well to take a page out of Bernie’s book in that regard and completely ignore the fandom when it comes to this kind of stuff.

      1. @aiii That seems to be the name of the game in the comment section on this page, unfortunately. I agree with your comments about fan involvement as well (at least if such surveys are not based on representative sampling across different demographics, fan groups, etc.).

  9. RE:cotd
    I think this sentiment is a bit biased by some famous episodes that stick in collective memory, namely Malaysia multi 21, and the Turkey incident. To be fair we have to remember that most of the times the results were a victory for Vettel and a 4th place for Webber. More rarely we got a Red-Bull 1-2 and even more rarely did Webber challenge Vettel for Victory. By contrast I think Bottas has at least managed to occupy 2nd position much more often, just look at the result, while being a real menace to Hamilton not so much more rarely than what Rosberg did. Yes Rosberg capitalized in 2016 on a series of misfortunes by Hamilton, but even that year it was all but dominant by the german. I would say the three of them are indeed very close to each-other performance-wise when compared with their all conquering team mates.
    Compliance of Bottas to team orders is not to be mistaken for being a slow driver. Webber and Rosberg surely had less of this, so there’s that.

  10. @keithcollantine looks like the Canadian gp is definitively off, but that F1 has committed to come back through 2031 https://www.lapresse.ca/sports/course-automobile/2021-04-28/formule-1/le-grand-prix-du-canada-annule.php

  11. Serious question based on the tweet.

    Who gets pole position in the history books, is it the driver who qualified pole on the Friday, or the winner of the sprint race on Saturday who will sit in pole position for the race on Sunday?


Comments are closed.