Marcus Armstrong, Ferrari, Fiorano, 2021

Armstrong out as Ferrari confirms nine Driver Academy members for 2022

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Changes in the Ferrari Driver Academy leave it with no juniors racing in Formula 2 this year.

In brief

Ferrari confirm nine juniors for 2022

Ferrari has announced the nine members of its Driver Academy for 2022 after several of its top names have moved on from the programme.

The most senior members of the programme are Haas racer Mick Schumacher, who will be Ferrari’s reserve driver at selected rounds this year, and Robert Shwartzman, who will not return to F2 as he takes on a testing role with Ferrari. F2 racer Marcus Armstrong will not continue with the FDA while Callum Ilott, who has moved to IndyCar this year, is described as being on a “gap year” by the team. Having fielded five drivers in F2 just two years ago, Ferrari will have none this year.

A pair of FDA drivers will race in F3, however. Arthur Leclerc returns for a second season having won twice last year. He will drive for Prema alongside recent FDA recruit Ollie Barman.

Marcus Armstrong, Ferrari, Fiorano, 2021
Armstrong tested one of Ferrari’s F1 cars last year
Formula Regional Europe driver Dino Beganovic, Formula 4 racers Maya Weug, James Wharton and Rafael Camara and karter Laura Camps Torras complete the nine-strong FDA squad for the upcoming season.

Indy Lights announces 14-race calendar

IndyCar’s leading feeder series will cut the number of races on its calendar from 20 to 14 next year. The Indy Lights championship will begin with a single race in St Petersburg on February 27th, then visit Barber Motorsports Park, Indianapolis Motorsport Speedway grand prix circuit (two races), Detroit (two races), Road America, Mid-Ohio, Iowa, Nashville, Gateway, Portland and conclude with a double-header at Laguna Seca in September.

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

F1 should take the plunge and introduced synthetic fuel before its junior categories do, argues Scotty:

Does this seem backwards? F1 makes a big deal about being the pinnacle of motorsport and having the smartest people on the planet. How about unleashing the power of those talented individuals. Everyone has to be full synthetic in three years. It doesn’t matter if it’s plant based, hydrogen, solar panels or moon rocks. If you make more power, so be it. Five years after the change, you share your information with the public.

If this isn’t the kind of innovation that F1 embraces, they risk becoming a niche sport running old word technology.
Scotty (@Rockonscotty)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Abdurahman, Brian Frank and Al!

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

  • 95 comments on “Armstrong out as Ferrari confirms nine Driver Academy members for 2022”

    1. Basically, Ferrari’s pipeline is running on empty for the next 4 years, which is OK if the team stabilizes, Charles gets on form again and you want to keep Carlos and Mick around for the medium to long term.

      Not sure how to rate their program so far, but developing two young drivers to F1 sure isn’t exactly a failure.

      1. 2?

        They’ve got Mick. Robert should driving F1 since last year, and Callum is a 50%, at worst.

        1. Charles and Mick.

          Robert had a chance last year, but his 2021 didn’t exactly scream generational talent. So no F1 for him.

        2. They also have Sergio Perez and the late Jules Bianchi (RIP). Also, the way the groomed Felipe Massa was the precursor to the formal FDA scheme, so I’d add him to their list too.

          That makes 5 drivers, 15 race wins and 25 pole positions and a world championship for about 30 seconds, which is a pretty good return to be fair.

      2. I don’t think that really bothers them. Traditionally Ferrari have poached whatever driver they want whenever they have a championship winning car.

        Currently they don’t (or didn’t) so they could afford to bring up young drivers, but the minute they get a great car you can bet they’ll be approaching the likes of Verstappen, Hamilton etc like they always did.

        1. Traditionally Ferrari have poached whatever driver they want whenever they have a championship winning car.

          Or, more often, whenever they can convince a top driver that they will have a championship-winning car. It’s not always the same thing, but the draw of driving for Ferrari to many drivers is so strong that they are willing to risk ending up like Vettel or Alonso…

    2. I saw that BBC article yesterday, and as someone who usually approves of the BBC coverage, I was quite disappointed by it. Even though I agreed with the main heart of the article, it didn’t feel quite as balanced as you may expect from a BBC article, in my opinion. Beyond that, while the headline talks about Hamilton’s decision on next season, there’s very little in the article actually discussing that, and even then it doesn’t have (new) quotes or statements (most of them are days or weeks old by this point), just unnamed sources. That doesn’t make them inaccurate, but it does seem a bit below what I expect from the BBC team, and as I say, I usually quite like them, particularly the 5 Live commentary and Jolyon Palmer columns. This article just epitomises the classic “off-season space filler” and doesn’t really add anything in my opinion. Just repeating stuff previously reported on.

      Shame about Armstrong. Also surprised at no FDA in F2 this season.

      Happy to see the Rate the Race Top 100 has been updated. Thanks Keith

      For a bit more of a light-hearted, but still very interesting, statistical analysis of the season, this video covers the 2021 “Destructor’s Chanpionship”.

      1. @RandomMallard Having just read it, it sounds like an attempt to sound out everyone concerned (Hamilton, Mercedes, FIA) and only getting no response or vague hints about what’s been going on. However, the article does give the impression that some in FIA are indeed taking the possibility of Hamilton leaving, and the potential damage that would cause F1, fairly seriously. This bit was quite revealing:

        New president Mohammed Ben Sulayem has said he has contacted Hamilton since his election five days after the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. “I don’t think he’s 100% ready to respond right now,” Ben Sulayem said last week. “We don’t blame him. I understand his position.”

        That sounds like he got no reply from Hamilton, which matches the other bits of the report suggesting that he and Mercedes are waiting to see how FIA’s inquiry into Abd Dhabi goes and the measures they adopt to see whether Hamilton has enough confidence in FIA and F1’s integrity to continue or not. The fact remains that Masi’s bizarre intervention decided the race and championship winner. How can they convince Hamilton there won’t be a repeat? Actually much more difficult than it seems. That’s why from the start there’s actually a very big chance he will leave F1.

        1. That is an old quote, was followed up by saying “but there are also rules” and threatening sanction for his lack of attendance of the prize giving ceremony. Not revealing in the least.

        2. @david-br

          The interpretation of why Lewis is not responding and the idea that him staying depends on the outcome of the inquiry seems to be mere speculation. It’s typical punditry that makes me greatly dislike these media ‘experts’: take a fact that can be interpreted in many different ways and spin it as if it support one specific narrative.

          You are doing the same thing when interpreting the bit about Mohammed Ben Sulayem. The sentence you are quoting doesn’t even tell us what Ben Sulayem said to Lewis, to which he failed to respond. It may not have been about staying at all. This is spun in the article as if Ben Salem asked Lewis whether he wanted to stay in F1 and as if Lewis said that he wouldn’t decide until the inquiry was over, yet all of that is mere speculation. Ben Salem could also just have congratulated Lewis on the constructor’s and on 2nd in the driver’s, to which Lewis didn’t respond, after which Ben Salem made this remark in the media. Or Ben Sulayem could have complained to Lewis about not attending. Or he could have asked Lewis to adopt his cat. There are many other possibilities. We have no idea.

          1. @aapje Well yes and no. I probably read the article with as much ‘filtering’ as you. I’m sure Andrew Benson and other BBC journalists have been asking around, trying to get deeper into this story. And sure, they’ve clearly kicked up mostly smokescreens as none of the protagonists (LH, Mercedes, FIA) want to say anything right now. I realize some/many people will think Hamilton has every intention of continuing in Formula 1 and ‘staying quiet’ is maybe just a way of applying leverage to exact something in his or Mercedes’ favour, whether concrete actions, trade-off on some technical regulation or other in their favour, or more pressure for the next time a race director or the stewards have to make contentious decisions during races. I’m more inclined to think it’s likely a genuine collapse in trust in Formula 1’s as a viable sport, for him. Especially as he has, no doubt, by this stage in his career, already pondered and prepared alternatives for his post-Formula 1 life. If so – it’s a genuine doubt over whether he wants to carry on in F1 – then Mercedes will want him to continue, but will respect his decision, while FIA and Liberty opinions will range between ‘so what, bye bye’ and being concerned that they lose one of their two most popular drivers – perhaps even to a rival series – and maybe some credibility, temporarily or more long-term. The point I was trying to make is that even if FIA did want to give Hamilton (and Mercedes) some reassurance that the Abu Dhabi finale was a one-off aberration, how would they restore confidence? Not as easy as it may seem. Once they had endorsed the result, shortly after the race, there was really no going back. As a Hamilton fan (not entirely exclusively, I’d be happy to see Verstappen v. Russell next year, with, who knows, McLaren and the Ferraris competing too) my biggest concern is Lewis continuing but without real trust in the sport any longer – because that will definitely lead to a decline in his performance. He should either put it all in the past and forget the end to 2021, for real, or leave F1.

            1. @david-br

              Journalists are notorious for writing down speculation and agenda-driven lies to sell newspapers. Then when these stories prove to be false again and again, the excuse is always that they weren’t lying, but just writing down what they’ve been told. As if writing down completely unreliable statements, which they personally benefit from, without properly fact-checking, absolves them.

              I’m more inclined to think it’s likely a genuine collapse in trust in Formula 1’s as a viable sport, for him.

              This is mere speculation. Fact is that Lewis has been slow to extend his contract in the past and has signed many short contracts, which doesn’t speak to him being particularly enthusiastic to keep racing. He has also made statements about potentially retiring in the past, which can’t have been due to the events at Abu Dhabi, as he said them before that happened.

              Any entire narrative that any reticence must solely be due to X is dumb anyway. Real people often make decisions for multiple reasons.

              Once they had endorsed the result, shortly after the race, there was really no going back.

              There was no going back during the race, after Masi gave the relevant orders. What do you think they could have done? Declare Lewis the champion after Max crossed the line first? Prevent Max from overtaking Lewis?

              my biggest concern is Lewis continuing but without real trust in the sport any longer – because that will definitely lead to a decline in his performance.

              Lewis has been making statements about being treated unfairly throughout his career, so if a lack of trust caused a decline in performance, that should already have happened. But I don’t think that you understand Lewis’ personality. He’s always been motivating himself by seeing himself as the victim of injustice.

            2. True, he says he does motivate himself through the injustices he says he’s experienced since childhood, both socioeconomic prejudice and racism. Does that make them non-existent? But I think your not really differentiating these instances properly and failing to see that the Abu Dhabi finale was qualitatively different. Hamilton’s belief is that given equal conditions, he can win. And he’s always thought that on track, he can more or less rely on the conditions being fair and equal. That’s what he may think has changed.

            3. There was no going back during the race, after Masi gave the relevant orders.

              There was an opportunity for the stewards/FIA to admit that mistakes were made without changing the championship result.

              There really was no legal way for the result to be changed in Mercedes favour, with the only real option being to nullify the entire race, which would have left Max as champion anyway. However, something in the verdict recognising the controversial nature of Masi’s actions, or a statement from him recognising that, may have gone some way to smoothing the issue over.

              The FIA could also, after the race, have said that they plan to place limits on this power for the future, which would have been an acknowledgement that things need to change without any admission of guilt.

              Instead, the stewards confirmed that the RD is perfectly entitled to ignore any rules and make up new ones whenever he wants (in relation to the safety car and race starts) without any limit on that power, and later FIA statements suggested that they don’t intend to do anything to change that. Instead, they plan to blame the everyone else: fans, drivers, teams.

            4. @david-br

              Does that make them non-existent?

              Lewis has enormous socioeconomic privilege right now and he grew up economically middle class (his father was an IT manager, not a factory worker!), which may make his upbringing poor compared to Rosberg, but hardly poor compared to society in general.

              As a kid, I bought my sports equipment at outlet stores and second-hand, getting laughed at for having lower quality equipment (and having to hide my lack of wealth in general). The expense of karting would not even be an option.

              I’m always amazed at how middle class or rich people spin these yarns of poverty and people keep falling for it. For example, Lewis’ father famously worked 4 jobs. In itself that claim, in service of a poverty narrative, should already set off the BS detectors, because it’s impossible to work 4 full-time jobs, so what does that actually mean in reality? We have no facts aside from knowing that he became a contractor to increase his income and/or to be able to travel with his son, a job in which it is common to work for different employers sequentially or concurrently. So the details we’ve been given insinuate that Lewis’s father worked 32 hours a day, while it is completely consistent with even a part-time contractor job. Of course, the very facts that would allow us to know are not shared with us. Hmmm, my BS detector is tingling again.

              Frankly, I’m not particularly impressed by the examples of racism he’s given in the past, but then again, I’ve actually had a childhood full of abuse and often have to laugh at anti-racist advocates who give examples that sound like heaven compared to my childhood, as the worst human rights abuses.

              But more importantly, just because Lewis has a certain past, or at least believes he does, doesn’t mean that it is his actual motivation, rather than a socially acceptable narrative that makes him look good. Lewis pretty consistently starts off seasons poorly and gets his act together along the way, suggesting a lack of motivation early on that that resolves itself later on. If he was actually motivated by the past, then this makes no sense, as the past doesn’t change significantly during the season. Yet we pretty much always see him getting upset during the season by situations where he feels hard done by, much more than is reasonable, often insinuating or outright claiming that people are conspiring against him. Don’t forget that he claimed a Red Bull conspiracy after Abu Dhabi qualifying, where he claimed that Max’ lockup was a ploy, even though he also claimed that the medium tire was better. He is so much of a conspiracy theorist that his theories don’t even make the slightest bit of sense.

              And he’s always thought that on track, he can more or less rely on the conditions being fair and equal. That’s what he may think has changed.

              How do you know that he’s always thought that things were fair or equal? How do you know that he’s not constantly seeing conspiracies everywhere? Because that’s what I keep seeing him saying, season after season.

            5. @aapje I don’t ‘know’ what Hamilton thinks: I’m just repeating what he’s said, namely that his answer to racism at school and in early racing was to do his responding on track where conditions (car performance aside, obviously) are or should be equal. Genuinely sorry to hear about your abusive childhood. I don’t see much point or benefit in ranking these kinds of bad experiences, though, and it seems like you’re misdirecting your anger.

            6. @david-br

              Please don’t patronize me.

              I just don’t see how the evidence supports his claims and in general, I don’t put much stock in how people present or perceive themselves, since it very often seems contrary to what we can observe, as well as often being factually challenged. People like to present a singular explanation for what they do, but the evidence is overwhelming that people with similar life experiences can respond hugely differently, based on other factors & that people often are motivated by different factors. For example, most people who have talent really appreciate being admired for their achievements in the thing they are good at. If Lewis is also motivated by that and not just by facing fair competition (which in itself doesn’t require having experienced exceptional injustice, BTW), that just makes him a fairly normal human being.

              Lewis just doesn’t come across as extremely motivated to compete, during longer periods. And that is not just perception, but based on his own statements. Again, the huge swings in performance each season and his changes in attitude during the season point to his motivation changing, which is not very consistent with your narrative.

              Also, this entire idea that Lewis only really cares about fair competition is completely at odds with his choice for an non-spec series anyway, as well as him getting clearly upset at his team when other cars get close in performance to the Mercedes, something that he claims to desire when his car is much faster. The difference in attitude between what he claims to want when he is substantially ahead and how he responds when he actually gets what he claims to want, is rather obvious.

              it seems like you’re misdirecting your anger.

              Anger? At whom? Not at Lewis. He is not significantly better or worse than most. I’m not addressing him here anyway. I’m addressing your theories. Not because I am angry at you, but because I think you are wrong.

      2. Unfortunately it is a typical bbc article. One would think bbc would not write lots of hearsay, but they did, tragically it might all be true.
        I don’t think we, f1 fans, should be made aware of such “negotiations”. This is the type of thing you just suspect about, nothing more.
        In 2020, everyone was up in arms about the ferrari and fia agreement and now we read this, the problem with transparency might be much worse than we thought.
        I’m not going to comment on the allegations or base any assumptions from it.
        At this point I don’t care to debate bias either, Benson, or the British media. These types of private conversations cannot come out, these ridicule f1 even further, I hope they are just Benson being bias and a bad journo.

        1. @peartree

          I’m fine with hearing about it, if it’s actually based on solid facts. Not these stories from anonymous insiders that more often than not turn out to be baseless gossip or lies to further an agenda.

          1. @aapje we already knew about the inquiry, we might have suspected that it had been announced to please and calm mercedes and Hamilton down.
            Now because of this piece of propaganda Andrew Benson is “incidentally” pushing forward, we now believe that if Tombazis and Masi get sacked it is down to merc and Ham. (I’ve been campaigning for Masi out since day 1).
            F1 cannot become 24 heurs du man or wec, f1 cannot do everything the top teams want them to do, the article makes it look like the fia is getting a penalty from mercedes.

      3. Aside from the bit quoted in the round-up, there are interesting tidbits in that BBC story. We have people from the Hamilton/Mercedes camp trying to put pressure on the FIA by telling Benson that Hamilton is waiting for the results of the inquiry. We have “senior F1 insiders” fearing the FIA is falling into its old habits of doing nothing and trying to warn them of what they see as the severity of the crisis. That tells about the dynamics at play here. Of course, all of these folks have an agenda and that’s why they’re talking to Benson in the first place. But in a sense, all good beat reporters become part of the story; that can’t be helped.

        Where the ice does seem thinnest is the bit quoted in the round-up, about the supposed deal between Mercedes and the FIA on Masi and Tombazis — just a single source, which Mercedes disputes. That one is a bit odd to me. An outside observer might reasonably suspect the truth could be somewhere in the middle — perhaps the FIA strongly hinted to Mercedes that Masi’s position would be reviewed, but did not make an ironclad promise. But what does Tombazis have to do with Abu Dhabi? Yes, Mercedes objected to Red Bull’s bendy wing and probably have a myriad of smaller grievances I’m forgetting, but bringing Tombazis into the Abu Dhabi mess would seem like overreach were it true.

        1. @markzastrow The problem is, just saying unnamed sources ithoutngoing into any more detail isn’t particularly useful in my opinion. If they had said “Mercedes insiders” or “people close to Hamilton”, the situation in my mind might be slightly different, but simply saying “insiders” isn’t really convincing me. It could be someone actually in the know, which is why I’m not discounting it entirely, but equally it could be Bernie for all we know. And as I said I my original comment, I agree with the main crux of the piece, I just don’t particularly like the way it’s been written/conveyed.

          Also my first thought when I saw Tombazis mentioned was that Merc might still be angry at the Brazil disqualification, which I think Tombazis may have had a part in as technical officer? But that is pure speculation on my part.

          1. Merc might still be angry at the Brazil disqualification

            Oh yes, that was not quite so small, was it? Ha, so much happened in the last couple races I can barely even remember Brazil.

            I share your scepticism of anonymous sources generally, but I also sympathise with any beat reporter who knows more than they can print. In the end, it comes down to whether a reporter or outlet has the trust of their readers through their body of work, and we’re all free to make our own judgments. Certainly, there are reporters, writers, and analysts who could be considered reliable and offer even less information about their sources than Benson does here, even if that’s not exactly what’s taught in journalism school. And there are reporters who tell you exactly who they heard something from, only to find they’ve been taken for a ride.

            Part of this is perception, too. If you look at the BBC as a supposedly unbiased, balanced bastion of objective journalism, maybe this type of gossip column looks off. If you look at Benson as the sport columnist for a local outlet who covers the hometown team, it fits right in. In this case, I’d argue both perspectives are valid.

        2. @markzastrow not an agenda, an old school phonebook.

      4. The article from the BBC is a typical Andrew Benson piece. I will never understand why one of the most respected news organisations in the world has an F1 editor with such clear biases.

        1. BBC isn’t the problem; it’s Andrew Benson.
          I cannot recall having read a single quality article from that guy.

          1. @jff

            The BBC allows Benson to publish this, under their supposed editorial responsibility that has resulted in a certain reputation, so that means that the BBC is also the problem.

      5. RandomMallard,
        I think this has a lot to do with the writer itself rather than the BBC. Andrew Benson – the master of nothing – has been writing a lot of crap for quite a while and frankly I don’t have any idea how he is keeping his job and how he got it in the first place. He is a biased Hamilton/Mercedes fan and anti-Ferrari by default.

        I remember him writing an article about Ferrari and Alonso when they were racing RBR for championship in 2012 if I correctly recall and tbh I’ve never read such rubbish in my life. I knew every time I come across one of his articles that he is just writing his own wishes rather than credible news. In this case, he is wishing Masi and Tombazis to be removed from their positions to satisfy his need for a personal vendetta.

        Another thing is that Ross Brawn who himself left Mercedes because he couldn’t trust Wolff and Lauda, will object the removal of both Masi and Tombazis – who worked under his leadership at Ferrari – just to satisfy Mercedes and Wolff.

        1. @tifoso1989

          frankly I don’t have any idea how he is keeping his job and how he got it in the first place. He is a biased Hamilton/Mercedes fan and anti-Ferrari by default

          I think that you have given the answer yourself. Something I consistently see is that people are way less critical of those whose biases matches their own, as their errors tend to be in favor of the beliefs those people have, which people don’t like to see questioned (the beliefs themselves, as well as the arguments in their favor).

      6. Happy to see the Rate the Race Top 100 has been updated. Thanks Keith

        Although some of the results in there are absolutely criminal. Such as the greatest race of all time, Canada 2011, only ranking eighth, Brazil 2008 in 20th, Hungary 2021 in 22nd and Malaysia 2012 in 32nd. My top ten (in this time period) would be:

        1. Canada 2011
        2. Brazil 2008
        3. Hungary 2021
        4. Malaysia 2012
        5. Brazil 2012
        6. Germany 2019
        7. Italy 2020
        8. Hungary 2014
        9. Canada 2014
        10. Sakhir 2020

    3. If this isn’t the kind of innovation that F1 embraces, they risk becoming a niche sport running old word technology.

      I really think that’s the only way F1 can go, time and time again they say they want to retain the spectacle of the volume produced by the engines as the entertainment factor, nobody is showing any sign of shying away from that… Unless they change their outlook, in 50 years it will be the equivalent of horse racing.

      Maybe autodrome cycling is the better comparison, there are still developments with technology there, but the underlying power transmission, pushing pedals with your legs, is outdated, much like the ICE will be.

      1. Horse racing is still popular (fortunately). F1 has been anti-innovation for decades now. There’s no TC, ABS, Active ride etc…. It’s open wheel too which is horrible aerodynamically and serves no real purpose outside of tradition (a tradition I happen to like). Motorsport IS old-world technology.

        It has to be remember sound elicits real emotion. Some of the ‘tech’ train seem to be in absolute denial about this thinking the ‘merits’ of a certain quiet technology outweigh the show. People charging big money for tickets at the major races understand this.

        1. Edit: Horse racing is still popular (UNFORTUNATELY).

      2. @skipgamer

        I disagree that autodrome cycling is outdated, as there are loads of people who commute or do amateur sports on these ‘outdated’ bicycles where they themselves have to push the pedals. Hipsters even popularized bikes that are fairly close to autodrome bikes (both being fixies). And chain-based transmissions are still being used because it is just a very good system. It’s frankly amazing how bicycle engineers got the bike fundamentals pretty much right over a hundred years ago.

        A lot of cycling sport regulation is to prevent the sport becomes faster at the expense of real life practicality, like banning recumbents and excessive earodynamic fairings.

      1. The problem is, I’m not sure firing Masi would necessarily be the answer. I explain in more detail here:
        https://f1frogblog.wordpress.com/2022/01/05/the-final-lap-of-the-abu-dhabi-gp/
        but I think the FIA and Liberty like that he prioritises entertainment and is a little controversial because it increases the number of viewers to the sport, although the Abu Dhabi GP was certainly too far and should at least warrant an investigation into how much the farcical end was down to Masi and how much was down to instructions he’d been given.

    4. Andrew Benson never heard an unverified rumour he wasn’t prepared to type up into a full-length article. Some people in the paddock feed him obvious nonsense for a laugh.

    5. Ferrari appoint Jean Todt we advisor. Its official.

      1. @Sumedh Nothing reported (yet).

        1. I read it here https://mobile.twitter.com/ScdriaFerrari/status/1480858635337093121

          . Didn’t realise that is not the official account. Apologies.

    6. Why should Nikolas Tombazis leave? He has nothing to do with the manipulation gate.
      I again doubt ousting Masi would necessarily improve things. The only things needed are explanation & assurance.

      1. @jerejj As RandomMallard comments above, he would have been involved in the decision to disqualify Hamilton from Brazil qualifying. But if true – which it almost certainly isn’t, because Andrew Benson – it would demonstrate that this is all about settling scores for Mercedes rather than any lofty ideals about sporting integrity.

    7. I just hope that Lewis doesn’t do anything petty and attention seeking in a “Don’t you know who I am?” type of way.
      Everyone knows that what happened was wrong bordering on corrupt but nothing is going to be rolled back now.
      All that can be done going forwards is to highlight every discrepancy and every mistake that Masi and the FIA make in future until they become more consistent and trustworthy.

      Mercedes (drivers included) need to just suck it up and fight back.

      1. @nullapax Why would Hamilton want to compete in a championship where the person in charge of enforcing the rules is clearly biased against him (as proven by actions) and according to the FIA’s ruling in that last race, allowed to throw and withdraw a safety car into the mix whenever he feels like it rather than as a safety process. That’s effectively what the ruling in the last race said is that the race director has control of the safety car and can do whatever he feels like, regardless of all the safety car regulations that are written in the rules.

        That position is untenable for fairness in a sport and needs to be addressed before another wheel is turned in anger. We cannot go into a new season with doubt over how safety processes should work.

        This is about more than a lost championship which I’m sure was a huge disappointment for Hamilton (I reckon 2010 hurt him more) but ultimately it’s about ensuring there is fairness in the rules moving forward. The only people who thought that last race was in anyway a “fair” result was Verstappen fans, that can never happen again.

        1. @slowmo
          Not a single Verstappen fan thinks the Abu Dhabi GP was fair, given how the stewards refused to order Lewis to give the place back after Max his gorgeous overtake on lap 1.

          But all fans, apart from the Lewis fans, believe we have the correct winner of the 2021 WDC instead of a dirty driver who got way to much decisions favouring him.

          Reply moderated
          1. @Niki101 the only dirty driver this championship was Verstappen, unfortunately the stewards decided to gift him a free ride until they realised they looked silly after Brazil. And as a Norris fan I disagree only Hamilton fans think Verstappen deserved that win.

            Mind you if you take away 2 safety cars, 2 extra free stops for tyres and remove all back markers for Verstappen, allow another driver to cost Hamilton 10s and then take away the lead Hamilton earned through driving better all race them sure of course he earned that win. God bless those orange goggles.

        2. the person in charge of enforcing the rules is clearly biased against him (as proven by actions)

          Personally, I think the actions of Masi and others throughout the season show fairly clearly that there is no bias towards or against any particular driver. There is a massive amount of inconsistency and, in my view, incompetence, but that went in both directions fairly equally.

          according to the FIA’s ruling in that last race, allowed to throw and withdraw a safety car into the mix whenever he feels like it

          This is the bit which I both disagree is the correct interpretation of the rule and is too dangerous to leave if it was, as it is far too open to abuse (as, IMHO, we saw in Abu Dhabi).

          1. @drmouse I was being a little facetious with that remark on the bias but it does seem that on the whole some drivers for some reason get treated very differently to others.

            From a Hamilton perspective there is the fact that he was penalised for the practice starts with 2 penalties which were inappropriate for example at the Russian Grand Prix 2020.

            The infamous non penalty for Verstappen in Brazil when he drove him off the track by several meters.

            The frankly ridiculous driving by Verstappen in Qatar where Hamilton constantly had to avoid being hit by him yet no black flag. The penalty at Silverstone for what was a racing incident albeit subsequently race ending.

            The ridiculous disqualification in qualifying at Brazil for what was effectively a broken part and should have been allowed to be fixed, ignoring the fact that it was tampered with by a competitor too. Also the FIA refusing to allow the part to be inspected prior to the race too which resulted in an inability to properly defend or appeal he verdict.

            Last year when Hamilton was barged off the road by Leclerc in Monza which was allowed with a simple black and white flag (a rule never ever used in such circumstances previously).

            The somewhat baffling circumstances in the last few laps of the race at Abu Dhabi.

            Finally the most controversial which is Silverstone which was absolutely a racing incident where Verstappen turned in on Hamilton and caused the accident because as we’ve seen from Verstappens non penalties at the end of the year, if you’re coming alongside into the apex of the corner you’re entitled to have space throughout. Hamilton was penalised harshly because Verstappen crashed which is complete contrary to the rules that incidents be penalised with the penalty appropriate to the crime and not the outcome. Had Verstappen not crashed it would have been at best a 5 second penalty.

            I don’t know why but it does seem some drivers get a lot less rub of the green on marginal calls than others. You can call it inconsistency but after a point you have to start questioning if there isn’t some ulterior motives at work.

            1. You can call it inconsistency but after a point you have to start questioning if there isn’t some ulterior motives at work.

              I think it’s called bias, @slowmo. Hamilton is your guy, and you’ve that made abundantly clear.
              You aren’t seeing any of these from a neutral perspective.

              ‘Persecution complex’ springs to mind….

            2. @slowmo

              Your examples are full of bias and the very selection is biased in what you left out, like the lack of a penalty for Lewis for cutting the chicane at Abu Dhabi.

            3. @slowmo In this, I agree with @aapje and S. You have cherry picked examples which support your own argument, exactly as many Max supporters (and, TBH, Max and Christian themselves) have done throughout the year to suggest that Max was being unfairly targeted.

              When you take into account all of the questionable decisions involving Max and Lewis throughout the year, they fall fairly evenly each way. That doesn’t make any of them right, and certainly doesn’t absolve anyone of blame for the final controversy, but it is fairly conclusive that there is no specific bias for or against either driver.

            4. @aapje I think you mean when Hamilton got pushed off the track by Verstappen and hence had to rejoin further ahead than he was already on entry to the corner before Verstappen torpedoed his car. Nope that wasn’t biased by my omission but nice try.

              How about pointing out a genuine time this year Hamilton deserved a penalty but didn’t get one, Silverstone doesn’t count because he received a penalty that was in line if not harsher than all previous examples of similar incidents.

              Hamilton is not my guy actually and all those incidents when taken from a neutral perspective were questionable. If you can’t see their questionable then I would suggest it’s your inherent bias that is the issue. Please do elaborate how what I said was wrong from your perspective on those incidents.

              Russian GP 2020 – The rule broken was ambiguous to the say the least and the penalty being applied in race was also questionable.

              Silverstone 2021 – Clearly a penalty was applied and in line with other penalties for causing a collision albeit 10s instead of 5s. The fact Verstappen retired should have been irrelevant to the investigation and penalty. Ultimately Verstappen instigated the contact too which was not considered.

              Abu Dhabi 2021 – If you consider the last few laps fair then you’re a lost cause and certainly not neutral.

              Brazil qualifying disqualification – The part was clearly broken and others have previously been allowed to repair or replace parts post qualifying.

              Being forced to avoid another drivers reckless lunge in Brazil and then being pushed off track by many meters only for there to not even be an investigation was a ridiculous call. Had they at least investigated the incident and said no further action it ight have been at least competent so the verdict could be appealed if necessary later. By not investigating they gave Mercedes no route to appeal had Hamilton not been able to pass again. Whether the call would have been right or wrong is not the point, the point was following the correct process (again).

              Monza 2020 – Apparently running a driver off track is fine if it’s not your driver then?

              The Verstappen driving standards of course was actually the Saudi Arabian GP, I messed up that in my earlier update. I do suppose that as it was no penalty for Hamilton in question it’s irrelevant though.

            5. @slowmo

              That’s how a typical inside overtake works, you go in fast and prevent the other driver from overtaking on the exit by claiming the racing/outside line, so the ‘fast in, slow out’ cornering keeps you ahead and the other driver has to brake, not being able to use his faster line through the corner. The defense to that is to either block the inside or do the switch back.

            6. I know, that’s why Silverstone wasn’t Hamilton’s fault as Verstappen shouldn’t have turned in and surrendered the exit. At least that’s what Verstappen fans have been saying is what should happen is when on the outside you should give up the corner.

            7. S and @aapje accusing others of bias is quite funny. There are some reasonably unbiased commenters here, just a few truth be told, but neither of you are (nor me).

            8. @slowmo

              That wasn’t on the exit of the corner. Max was obliged to leave a car’s width, which he did, while Lewis didn’t stick to the space that was left.

              You can keep demonstrating that you don’t understand racing at all, but it doesn’t reflect well on you.

              @david-br

              I may be biased in what I choose to respond to, but my opinions are not all that biased.

            9. @aapje the vast majority of your comments come across as strongly biased in favour of Max and against Lewis, in the same way as some on here (probably including my own) come across as strongly biased against Max and in favour of Lewis. You may not be as bad as some, but there definitely looks to be a significant bias.

              This is not an attack, by the way. It is perfectly natural for people’s view to be distorted by who they support. But either you are wrong about the bias in your own opinions, or your comments are quite far from your opinions…

            10. @drmouse

              I think that is mostly perception because I choose to comment in his favor a lot, because due to the bias on this forum, Lewis will be defended anyway. There is often no one defending Max and those who do, often get bullied (like Erikje, who is very biased, but is treated way worse than equally biased commenters).

              In a less biased environment, I wouldn’t do this.

            11. @aapje No, Verstappen turned into the apex and cut off the space Hamilton was entitled to but I can understand you trying to insult people when you’ve lost your argument. And to suggest you’re not biased against Hamilton after your constant bashing of him at every opportunity is rather sad. Maybe look at your own post history before you start throwing around bias claims about others.

            12. @slowmo

              Max clearly never hit the apex, or else Lewis would have to have been off the track when he hit Max. So you are spouting your usual total nonsense.

          2. @aapje I never did say he hit the apex, I said he turned into it but carry on with the whataboutism and passive aggressive insults, makes you look really classy.

            1. @slowmo

              He turned into the corner a bit aggressively, but never took away the space for Lewis. That is a fact.

            2. @AApje I’ll agree to disagree but at least we both agree on this part “He turned into the corner a bit aggressively”.

            3. @slowmo

              That’s why the stewards considered Lewis predominantly, but not fully to blame.

      2. Everyone knows that what happened was wrong bordering on corrupt

        You are in a bubble. This might be coincidental or of your own choosing, but it is where you are currently.

        1. You are right, not everyone knows or acknowledges it. Personally, I cannot understand how anyone can consider what happened in the past few laps to be even close to sporting or fair, but I know that there are people who do whether I can understand their point of view or not.

          1. @drmouse

            I consider it more sporting and fair than when Lewis was allowed to prevent the overtake by cutting the chicane, at least when it comes to the top 2.

            Ultimately, it was agreed by the teams that it is desirable and sporting to finish the race under green and that race control should do their best to make this happen. In itself that agreement only makes sense if race control is allowed to act differently at the end of the race. So then the question is to what extent they may do so.

            Fact is that for the top 2, race control created a situation similar to what would have happened if the accident had happened a little earlier. So in itself, that is not an unsporting race situation. In contrast, applying the normal rules for dive bomb overtakes in motor sports or what the rules were under Whiting, would have meant that Lewis would have had let Max past. Lots of people have complained that it’s absurd and extremely unsporting that drivers can cut the track during lap one when simply racing others (so no accident to evade), rather than be required to actually brake in time and give up the place if they can’t do so and stay within the track limits. Alonso famously flipped the bird to the stewards/Masi by simply cutting the chicane without any attempt to stay within the white lines.

            At Abu Dhabi, Masi suddenly allowed this on a later lap than lap one, breaking the established rules that were already not sporting. Yet somehow it is the race ending that is the only part of the race that is unsporting, that broke the rules, etc?

            To me, these debates are like watching a judo match where competitors were allowed to punch each other, bite each other and push their fingers in each other’s eyes. But then at the end of the match, the referee allows a bit of overtime, against the rules, allowing one more fully legal attack attempt & then suddenly people argue that it is extremely unsporting, unfair, etc. It makes little sense to me.

            1. I consider it more sporting and fair than when Lewis was allowed to prevent the overtake by cutting the chicane, at least when it comes to the top 2.

              TBH I am in agreement that it was ridiculous not to tell Hamilton to give the place back there. That said, the stewards have allowed a lot of gaining/keeping position off track incidents to slide thoughout the season, so as ridiculous as it was, it was at least precedented and no more ridiculous than many such decisions throughout the season, most of which have been in Max’s favour. Two (or in this case many) wrongs don’t make a right, of course, and Hamilton should have been told to give the place back.

              Ultimately, it was agreed by the teams that it is desirable and sporting to finish the race under green and that race control should do their best to make this happen. In itself that agreement only makes sense if race control is allowed to act differently at the end of the race.

              I’m not sure I agree with the second sentence here. Just because it is desirable for the race to finish under green flags doesn’t necessarily mean they should be allowed to break the rules to do so. It is desirable for me to be on time to my appointment, but that doesn’t make it legal for me to do twice the speed limit or ignore traffic lights in order to do so.

              That said, even if you are correct that it is acceptable for them to alter the rules in order to meet this objective, surely that is only the case if there isn’t a way to accomplish this within the rules. In this case, there was a written procedure in the rulebook which allowed this to happen: calling the safety car in without clearing the backmarkers. This was completely under the race director’s control, not subject to limitations, didn’t require controversial “god powers” to be used to enable it, and would have allowed the race to finish under green flags. IMHO this completely nullifies the “there was an agreement not to finish under the safety car” excuse.

              Fact is that for the top 2, race control created a situation similar to what would have happened if the accident had happened a little earlier. So in itself, that is not an unsporting race situation.

              And if the accident had happened earlier, or the car had been able to be cleared more quickly, that would have been fair and sporting, just the luck of the draw. That isn’t what happened, though, and the situation and rules would have affected the decisions made by all teams on the grid. Had the SC happened 10 laps earlier, for instance, I am pretty certain Merc would have pitted Lewis, as it would be a near-certainty that there would be several green laps for him to try to get past Max on fresh rubber. As it was, even with the agreement, it was close enough to the end that there was every chance the accident wouldn’t have been cleared quickly enough to allow a green flag finish.

              In contrast, applying the normal rules for dive bomb overtakes in motor sports or what the rules were under Whiting, would have meant that Lewis would have had let Max past.

              Again, I agree, but I’ll also repeat that many similar incidents have been treated similarly this season. I completely disagree with the way track limits etc have been handled this season, but Max has been the beneficiary of this lax handling more times than anyone else…

              TBH, the entirety of the officiating of this year has been woeful, but there was only one decision which actually broke all precedent, required a ridiculous interpretation of the rules to give the race director unlimited “god powers” and handed a massive advantage to one specific driver with no time for anything to be done about it.

              At Abu Dhabi, Masi suddenly allowed this on a later lap than lap one, breaking the established rules that were already not sporting.

              I’m pretty sure it was turn 5 on the first lap… I may be mistaken.

              I still agree that it was not really on, but it was consistent with similar situations earlier in the season. It wasn’t the race director completely ignoring the rules, ignoring all precedent and making up something brand new which benefitted only one driver on the track.

              To summarise: Both were wrong, neither were fair, but only one flew in the face of all convention, precedent and procedure, and that was the call about the safety car.

    8. If

      the person in charge of enforcing the rules is clearly biased against him

      @slowmo then by running away Lewis let’s them win and they will continue to do what they want.

      Lewis should stay and make himself an absolute pain in the neck to those in charge using his high social profile to point out what is wrong in F1.

      It seems to me that the majority of drivers and pretty much any level headed F1 fan consider what happened made a mockery of F1 and the only way to get change is to fight for it.
      No one ever won a fight by running away.

      1. Drat – posted instead of replying with no way to fix the mistake :/

        1. If he did, we would have the usual trolls say that he is whining too much and should shut up and get lost – he will be criticised whatever he does.

      2. It seems to me that the majority of drivers and pretty much any level headed F1 fan consider what happened made a mockery of F1

        You, too, might be surprised by what you’d find if you stepped out of your current bubble.

        1. and stepped into yours?

        2. I have tried to “step out of my bubble”. The comment may be a bit strong, but the vast majority of neutral fans (in terms of Max vs Lewis), and even some Max fans, I have spoken to have said that they don’t believe Masi’s handling of this situation was correct or fair. This includes many who are from different countries around the world. Lewis fans are more likely to be angrier about it, as you would expect, but it has certainly damaged the standing of F1 as a fair competition in the eyes of a large number of fans, not just Hamilton fans or those in the UK.

      3. @nullapax Lewis’ social media profile would enable him to make criticism as effectively outside F1 as inside. When staying is taken as acceptance of injustice, staying is automatically losing the fight (at which point quitting allows winning on one’s own terms instead of the wrongdoer’s).

        1. I have to disagree @alianora-la-canta

          I believe the world of F1 would very quickly dismiss him as a sour loser – a “Has Been” and no one in their right mind considers social media worthy of more than few seconds of attention.
          Just look at how many people laugh at Rosberg commenting on the sport these days.

          Quitting – in order to win on your own terms – is still quitting.

          I want to see this man come back and fight hard.
          I want to see him eyeballing Max and the FIA.
          I want some genuine emotion back into F1.

    9. EL hamil just playing his usual game to drive up the hype, like last year with the extension, meanwhile as a benefit firing up his fans to do the pressuring to the FIA, instead of him standing out and saying what is needed. I cant believe people can still admire him, while he and his team tries to divide the fanbase instead of accepting a defeat the one time when something hadnt gone their way. Of course one could sarcastically argue that this is rightful anger as Merc didnt get what they paid for, watching the multi season long rigging for Hamilton and Merc :D
      This “If FIA dont decide it in my way, Im going home” thing is just pure childish behaviour if we can believe a word what A. Benson writes(that is hard of course). If wouldnt been for the all year long rigging and the useful ramming of Max a few times, he would already lost his championship way before abu dhabi thanks to his inability to drive in a real championship fight against a strong minded driver, littering the season with mistakes all over the place. He is only able to fight if he has a 1sec car advantage.
      Im really proud that someone broke the statpadding of him, he doesn’t deserve to be at the same level in the history books as MSc or even Prost or Senna

      1. @leventebandi

        Im really proud that someone broke the statpadding of him, he doesn’t deserve to be at the same level in the history books as MSc or even Prost or Senna

        So that explains the rest of your ‘balanced’ opinion, I guess.

      2. Incomprehensible rubbish again. You don’t get to be a seven time world champion if you’re not an exceptional driver.

        I don’t recall Lewis deliberately pushing an opponent off the circuit either. Twice I seem to recall. That’s an example of the sportsmanship of M. Schumacher senior for you. Not to say he was not also a great driver though, most of the time.

        1. @phil-f1-21

          I don’t recall Lewis deliberately pushing an opponent off the circuit either.

          Hamilton at Mercedes when he was paired with Rosberg and especially in his early years with McLaren made a career of pushing people off the track. It’s not because that you don’t recall it happening it means it didn’t happen. I can bring you countless examples of Hamilton pushing people off the track. In Hockenheim 2008, he pushed Massa twice off the road in two consecutive corners and overtook Kovalainen thanks to a disguised team order. No investigation, no penalty and he won the championship by 1 point.

          Not to say he was not also a great driver though, most of the time.

          You seem to be contradicting yourself in the same comment. You don’t get to be a seven time world champion if you’re not an exceptional driver :)

    10. I support the decision that first only in the feeder categories will sitch to synthetic fuel, more so in the view of the budget cap. These series has spec engines so its easier to get lab level results

    11. What on earth is this news about Hamilton? It’s from Benson BBC. Feels clickbait and weird to hear that a deal has been agreed among Mercedes and the FIA.

      Reply moderated
    12. Have we ever had a sports team insist that two referees be sacked, insist that it will hold the regulator to account and a player reportedly tell the regulator to reform its governance or he will retire?

      If these demands are met the FIAs reputation as an independent regulator will be in serious doubt.

      The FIA have been weak. They succumb to take on LM/Team subjective ideologies (“let them race”, “finish race under a green flag”, “lenient interpretation of the rules at race start”) without detailed rules and supporting LM financial objective (spa)

      It has been reported there is pressure form the LM/Teams on these topics, but is that at the top of the FIA? I cannot see that Masi & Tombazis have totally autonomy for the implementation of these concepts in the FIA organizational structure and Todt has a lot of friends.

      1. If these demands are met the FIAs reputation as an independent regulator will be in serious doubt.

        Their reputation is already in serious doubt after they have allowed one of their own officials to flout the rulebook and invent new procedures which clearly benefitted one specific driver.

        Also, remember that we have no proof that these reports are true. Hamilton has said nothing about either his future or the Abu Dhabi debacle since that fateful day. We don’t actually know what is happening between him and the FIA, and he has no obligation to do anything about it at all.

        1. I agree that the FIAs reputation is poor through its inconsistent application of the regulations. The question remains the reason for this and the effect, influence and pressure from LM/Teams. Just for clarity, this does not cover all of the inconsistencies.

          The point I was making regarding the reported Toto/Lewis demands is if the FIA concede and change they may no longer be considered independent and autonomous in their regulatory capacity.

          1. if the FIA concede and change they may no longer be considered independent and autonomous in their regulatory capacity

            That’s only even close to true if such demands have actually been made. However, while “conceding to the demands” may imply a lack of impartiality, it isn’t conclusive. All organisations will consider the opinions of members, customers, suppliers and the general public in making decisions. Just because Merc and Lewis may have demanded some action be taken doesn’t make it wrong to take that action.

            To me, the action suggested (making changes to the regulations to stop the race director from being able to make up new rules and ignore existing ones whenever he feels like it) is one which should come in regardless of who is suggesting it, and not doing so looks far worse for the FIA and F1 than being seen to bow to pressure from Mercedes. Not doing so is effectively, in my eyes, an admission that the FIA no longer care about sporting fairness and just want an exciting, made-for-TV reality show.

          2. Given Sky have better access than most; and given the complaints from various teams and drivers throughout the year, I tend to go with their take on the situation. ‘A number of senior figures now consider his (Masi) position untenable, and several teams have expressed a lack of confidence in his performances as Race Director.’ Besides to turn it into a FIA v Mercedes row now would probably suit the FIA more than Mercedes.
            As for the Masi and Tombazis sacking, that seems to have gained ground as they are missing off the new FIA family tree. But as others have pointed out they now come under Peter Bayer as Director of Motor Sport.
            This all does remind me of the accusation by RB before AD that Hamilton had total control over the media and was making RB out to be the bad guys; with the retort by Rosberg saying that ‘He’s controlling the media by not saying anything about you?’ Seems that after a month of still not saying anything about anything he still has total control of the media and those who have spent the last decade saying they wished he would shut up.

            Reply moderated
        2. Just as a side note. Next season we will have all new technical regulations which have been developed by LM/RB. It has been reported that they are handing over to the FIA for the start of the season. I hope LM/RB developed the tools to provide sufficient compliance checks otherwise the FIA will find themselves in another controversy.

      2. The governing body is called the FIA precisely because there was a day, back in 1980, when the majority of competitors plus Bernie Ecclestone went up against the FISA (who used to govern F1)… …and won (even if, on at least one version of the story, it is because both sides were trying to start a phone call to surrender and the FISA dialled quicker). The FISA’s perceived lack of tenability wasn’t “in serious doubt” largely because it ceased to exist as an independent entity. The FIA was once the teams’ choice of governance, shaped by Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley’s vision of what a governing body should be like (and notably, how it should relate to its primary series’ commercial partner).

        More likely, this will end like 2009, when Max Mosely’s ability to continue as leader after what was perceived as an attempt to destroy F1 (which was mostly misguided strategy, albeit intended to do good) was questioned by most of the teams. He ended up being obliged to avoid re-election at the end of that year, and the main instigators got more power due to the FIA not being trusted…

    13. The inconsistent handling of various situations thru out the year whether for or aganoat any of the drivers is what is wrong. Its not the drivers fault. All the drivers will utilize every inch and more where necessary to win. Its upto the fia stewards and race direction to ensure fair play by the drivers and teams. Sadly last year f1 fell way short of the mark. All for the Show but it actually back fired last year was not the best. but arguably the most interesting due to the inconsistencies. Its now WWE Lets hope the new man incharge will bring about the changes required to move F1 back into the realm of sport and not just entertainment. I love this sport ive watched since i was a little boy some 30 odd years ago. Please dont destroy it FIA.

      1. For me, the FIA has already failed in this investigation by only being willing to investigate the finale, and not the build-up. It is possible it may come to the correct result and strike out the 2021 championship due to persistent governance misconduct, but the FIA will never understand how it got into a position where it felt its actions at Abu Dhabi made sense – thus it will be in danger of finding itself in that position again.

    14. So F1 did not make two test cars and put them on track to see how they would go following each other? Why do we have this rule change again? With the same engines again? For closer racing I hear but no one knows for sure? Sounds cool and normal to me.

    15. If Lewis were to walk, what would be plan B for Hamilton’s seat? I couldn’t see them bringing back Bottas, so would they buy out Vettel’s contract with Aston Martin?

      Would be strange to see Vettel in a Mercedes but it seems that would be the easiest seat swap given that AM are Mercedes engine customers.

    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'.