Welcome to Monday’s edition of the RaceFans round-up.
Comment of the day
One of the stewards’ decisions mystified many yesterday:
Absolutely mind boggling that Lawson got time penalties and penalty points yet Yuki got away with hitting cars, causing the safety car and causing Sainz to retire. Jack
Oliver Bearman: 'Of course, it was a bit lucky to get the safety car, but I felt really strong in the first stint, the second stint on the hard was a bit tricky, but we caught the safety car which was lucky. Then to hold my position is easier said than done with faster cars around you.'
'Following the FIA post-race scrutineering checks, Nico's car was found not to conform with the regulations, with a skid plank wear in excess of the limit set by the rules. As a result, Nico was disqualified from the Bahrain Grand Prix. We will take the necessary learnings from this situation and conduct a thorough internal review.'
'(Max Verstappen) has a clause in his contract, which runs until 2028, that allows him to walk away if he is not lying third in the standings. That get-out can, I am told, be activated as early as this summer.'
'Rodin Motorsport driver Alexander Dunne took to the top step for the first time in Formula 2, winning the Sakhir Feature Race with a measured performance from fourth on the grid.'
'Trident's Rafael Camara was in supreme form on Sunday afternoon, converting a second pole position into a second feature race victory of the season in an action-packed Sakhir feature race.'
Daily Mail: An interesting condition claim about an exit clause, but I still believe that if he were to leave prematurely, it’d happen after the 2026 season at the earliest in any case.
Keith’s tweet: The point is essentially that SC was excessive for something that should realistically be equally achievable with VSC.
I don’t think so – the cars were spaced out so there was no gap for marshals to get on-circuit to clear debris. There were lots of little bits everywhere.
Dude The Hamilton-Sainz gap was 16-19 seconds shortly before the SC deployment, so that would’ve already been quite decent for marshals to quickly run & pick up the carbon fiber pieces between T1-2 & on the following straight with everyone under VSC deployment & Hulkenberg who was running last at the time was 69+ seconds behind Piastri, meaning that after he’d driven through the relevant section, Piastri reached it about 28 seconds after, so that interval period especially was more than enough for VSC.
Otherwise, barely any spreading out by that point in the race since no one was close to getting lapped at any point, so only these two gaps were lengthy to any extent.
Why the fallout from Christian Horner’s sexting scandal is still being felt one year on (Daily Mail)
We know why; because of the witch hunt from the UK press. It has nothing to do with the actual factual events that took place and that have been dealt with for quite some time now. This is a classic self constructed media story. Uk press at its worst.
Ferdi, is this going to be another paranoid “UK media secretly runs everything” rant? Are all of the media organisations across the world that reported on this story somehow subordinated to the evil machinations of the UK press, which has grown to be a monstrous villainous organisation in your mind?
Is there to be no criticism of the interventions of the Dutch press and the rather active role that they’ve played? After all, quite a few of the various leaks along the way were being directed through the Dutch press first, and then reported elsewhere. What about media organisations in France or Germany? Or is it easier for you to blame the UK press because you understand English and don’t understand other languages, so you’re unaware of your own ignorance of what was happening in the press in other countries?
We know why; because of the witch hunt from the UK press. It has nothing to do with the actual factual events that took place and that have been dealt with for quite some time now.
I think you’re missing the point, the most obvious effects were only partially covered by the press.
The departures of Adrian Newey, Jonathan Wheatley were just the better known names seen in the media. RBR have lost more staff than that.
The facts were swept under the proverbial carpet, internally dismissing the allegations is not the same as declaring, or proving, innocence.
Inside the team people will know more than they say, and if what they aren’t saying is giving them a bad feeling, they will be looking for an exit. No team can function properly when continually losing staff, good staff are hard to find.
However you feel about people having affairs (they do), power dynamics in such scenarios, and how it was handled. People leaving Red Bull, is certainly still a thing, if we look at it in a purely sporting sense.
Nothing is brilliant forever, everyone leaves workplaces. Red Bull having two four year spells at the very front in quick succession is great by any metric.
But they’re leaving at an abnormal rate. Newey has traditionally had a good nose for when to jump ship, some might go because they want a more senior position, money or geographical location. I doubt Newey wants money or a job title, I think he just wants to draw cars.
I don’t know if it is Christian, Jos, Helmut or someone else. All great teams disband, it’s natural in any sport. It just feels so unnecessary.
Ferdi the Daily Mail is MEDIA at its worst. Nothing UK about it and in case you dont know Horner is english and the team, based in Milton Keynes, an english town. That one of the hired drivers is Dutch or Belgian is not that relevant …except to those looking for it
Keith’s tweet: The point is essentially that SC was excessive for something that should realistically be equally achievable with VSC.
VSC, as currently done, does not appreciably slow down, or bunch up the cars.
As a consequence, a spread out field produces a dangerously fast car at regular intervals and the marshals cannot work safely.
I say “as done” because they could send the control data to slow and bunch up the cars without sending out a real safety car.
The bunching up is the only argument in favour of the SC. Double yellow still means be prepared to stop, marshals on or besides the track. It’s a failure of enforcement that makes F1 hesitant to use it.
It didn’t seem necessary to use the SC, and given its enormous implications on the race strategy, I for one would prefer the SC to be a much rarer sight. Unfortunately, recent history shows the opposite trend.
Again, totally agree. “Bunching up the field makes a race more exiting”, is the paradigm nowadays. That it clearly messes up strategies or even changes pecking order in a way that manipulates results that should be different without a SC.
I’m not against SC, when it is needed, even with listed downsides doing their part. That’s ok. But the SC should never be sent outside to stir up things. and therefore only should be used as a last resort.
Best practice would be to have the drivers use the pit limiters (or any other given low speed) in 1 or several mini sectors where marshals are at work. The pain would be the same for everybody on track and the profit for those who make a pit stop would not be as big.
Best practice would be to have the drivers use the pit limiters (or any other given low speed) in 1 or several mini sectors where marshals are at work.
Quoting what I said earlier:
I say “as done” because they could send the control data to slow and bunch up the cars without sending out a real safety car.
Of course, if you don’t do a full, physical, safety car, Mr. Maylander misses a chance to lead an F1 race. :)
“Slow zones” that work in the way you mentioned are used in other categories, notably at Le Mans, but given the comparatively short laps that are used in F1 could themselves be problematic – you can easily imagine a scenario where the timing of the neutralisation causes one driver to dramatically catch another, as only one of them had to go through the slow zone before it was withdrawn.
The SRO GT series use a much slower Full Course Yellow procedure which requires the cars to slow down to pit limiter speeds – however when the track is clear the Safety Car is then used to speed the cars up and bring the tyres, brakes etc. back up to temperature before the racing resumes. This makes for quite long neutralisation periods which could again be problematic for F1 if a similar “warm-up” period was required – I don’t know how the cars would respond to being required to drive for long periods at pit limiter speeds.
The only real change I would like to see is something to prevent SC/VSC periods being used for free pit stops. Perhaps the mandatory tyre change should only be permitted under green flag running, or the pit exit should be closed until the safety car has picked up the leader.
The problem with one car passing a slow zone once and another twice is indeed a problem, but this can be quite easily solved by closing the pitlane and, thanks to F1’s much smaller field, simply lifting the zone once everyone has gone through the same number of times. At worst it’ll be around a minute longer than strictly necessary, and since nobody has gone through the pitlane, it shouldn’t be too hard to figure out when everyone has gone through the zone again.
The fact that in 2023 they had like an hour long barrier repair under a slow zone at Le Mans makes me extremely dubious about the use of a safety car. It really is a very, very severe tool, and almost never really needed.
A VSC does have the same implications on strategy. They (except for Ferrari) were all in the VSC window so they would have pitted anyway. We would have all cars on the same strategy again without the “excitement” of the field being bunched together. We should have VSC with the pit lane closed like they have in GP2.
But in general I don’t think any kind of SC was necessary in this event as the debris was of a different quality as in Qatar and (to my knowledge) already cleared by cars before the safety car even came out. Also in Qatar it wasn’t necessary the debris that caused the punctures, but the field refusing to pit in expectation of it, knowing that nowadays every tiny incident usually triggers it.
SteveP See my reply to Dude above. In short here, the the field was barely spread out, so the interval period of nearly 30 seconds between Hulkenberg & Piastri driving through the relevant section was more than enough for VSC.
W/ Merc and McLaren being the best two cars right now, its pretty impressive to see Bearman keep that rocketship behind him.
Is Mercedes opening up their engines for the last season of v6’s ? What ever it is, they clearly have the best power unit on the grid, and Max’s Red Bull has no real efficient DRS or straight line advantage that he has or had in the previous years.
bull mello (@bullmello)
14th April 2025, 2:00
“Louis Vuitton and Formula 1”
Could maybe he was a racer? Or not? Just wondering…
;-)
Jere (@jerejj)
14th April 2025, 6:28
No, just one of F1’s most recent sponsor additions.
Coventry Climax
14th April 2025, 11:34
That was a joke remark regarding the pasta man Barilla joining the sponsors. No need to reply so seriously.
Jere (@jerejj)
14th April 2025, 6:27
COTD: Spot-on.
Daily Mail: An interesting condition claim about an exit clause, but I still believe that if he were to leave prematurely, it’d happen after the 2026 season at the earliest in any case.
Keith’s tweet: The point is essentially that SC was excessive for something that should realistically be equally achievable with VSC.
Coventry Climax
14th April 2025, 11:35
Daily Mail. Seriously?
David BR (@david-br)
14th April 2025, 15:45
Daily Mail paywall? Seriously no way. We’re already taxed for garbage to be taken away. Delivered too?
Dude
14th April 2025, 12:30
I don’t think so – the cars were spaced out so there was no gap for marshals to get on-circuit to clear debris. There were lots of little bits everywhere.
Jere (@jerejj)
15th April 2025, 7:32
Dude The Hamilton-Sainz gap was 16-19 seconds shortly before the SC deployment, so that would’ve already been quite decent for marshals to quickly run & pick up the carbon fiber pieces between T1-2 & on the following straight with everyone under VSC deployment & Hulkenberg who was running last at the time was 69+ seconds behind Piastri, meaning that after he’d driven through the relevant section, Piastri reached it about 28 seconds after, so that interval period especially was more than enough for VSC.
Otherwise, barely any spreading out by that point in the race since no one was close to getting lapped at any point, so only these two gaps were lengthy to any extent.
Ferdi
14th April 2025, 9:00
We know why; because of the witch hunt from the UK press. It has nothing to do with the actual factual events that took place and that have been dealt with for quite some time now. This is a classic self constructed media story. Uk press at its worst.
anon
14th April 2025, 9:40
Ferdi, is this going to be another paranoid “UK media secretly runs everything” rant? Are all of the media organisations across the world that reported on this story somehow subordinated to the evil machinations of the UK press, which has grown to be a monstrous villainous organisation in your mind?
Is there to be no criticism of the interventions of the Dutch press and the rather active role that they’ve played? After all, quite a few of the various leaks along the way were being directed through the Dutch press first, and then reported elsewhere. What about media organisations in France or Germany? Or is it easier for you to blame the UK press because you understand English and don’t understand other languages, so you’re unaware of your own ignorance of what was happening in the press in other countries?
SteveP
14th April 2025, 9:41
I think you’re missing the point, the most obvious effects were only partially covered by the press.
The departures of Adrian Newey, Jonathan Wheatley were just the better known names seen in the media. RBR have lost more staff than that.
The facts were swept under the proverbial carpet, internally dismissing the allegations is not the same as declaring, or proving, innocence.
Inside the team people will know more than they say, and if what they aren’t saying is giving them a bad feeling, they will be looking for an exit. No team can function properly when continually losing staff, good staff are hard to find.
bernasaurus (@bernasaurus)
14th April 2025, 10:43
However you feel about people having affairs (they do), power dynamics in such scenarios, and how it was handled. People leaving Red Bull, is certainly still a thing, if we look at it in a purely sporting sense.
Nothing is brilliant forever, everyone leaves workplaces. Red Bull having two four year spells at the very front in quick succession is great by any metric.
But they’re leaving at an abnormal rate. Newey has traditionally had a good nose for when to jump ship, some might go because they want a more senior position, money or geographical location. I doubt Newey wants money or a job title, I think he just wants to draw cars.
I don’t know if it is Christian, Jos, Helmut or someone else. All great teams disband, it’s natural in any sport. It just feels so unnecessary.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
14th April 2025, 16:47
Ferdi the Daily Mail is MEDIA at its worst. Nothing UK about it and in case you dont know Horner is english and the team, based in Milton Keynes, an english town. That one of the hired drivers is Dutch or Belgian is not that relevant …except to those looking for it
SteveP
14th April 2025, 9:04
VSC, as currently done, does not appreciably slow down, or bunch up the cars.
As a consequence, a spread out field produces a dangerously fast car at regular intervals and the marshals cannot work safely.
I say “as done” because they could send the control data to slow and bunch up the cars without sending out a real safety car.
MichaelN
14th April 2025, 9:15
The bunching up is the only argument in favour of the SC. Double yellow still means be prepared to stop, marshals on or besides the track. It’s a failure of enforcement that makes F1 hesitant to use it.
It didn’t seem necessary to use the SC, and given its enormous implications on the race strategy, I for one would prefer the SC to be a much rarer sight. Unfortunately, recent history shows the opposite trend.
BMW P85 V10
14th April 2025, 10:24
Again, totally agree. “Bunching up the field makes a race more exiting”, is the paradigm nowadays. That it clearly messes up strategies or even changes pecking order in a way that manipulates results that should be different without a SC.
I’m not against SC, when it is needed, even with listed downsides doing their part. That’s ok. But the SC should never be sent outside to stir up things. and therefore only should be used as a last resort.
Best practice would be to have the drivers use the pit limiters (or any other given low speed) in 1 or several mini sectors where marshals are at work. The pain would be the same for everybody on track and the profit for those who make a pit stop would not be as big.
SteveP
14th April 2025, 10:46
Quoting what I said earlier:
I say “as done” because they could send the control data to slow and bunch up the cars without sending out a real safety car.
Of course, if you don’t do a full, physical, safety car, Mr. Maylander misses a chance to lead an F1 race. :)
Jorge Jaime
14th April 2025, 10:46
I wish they could stopp and parke on the track until everything is clear out, and then resume the race
Red Andy (@red-andy)
14th April 2025, 12:53
“Slow zones” that work in the way you mentioned are used in other categories, notably at Le Mans, but given the comparatively short laps that are used in F1 could themselves be problematic – you can easily imagine a scenario where the timing of the neutralisation causes one driver to dramatically catch another, as only one of them had to go through the slow zone before it was withdrawn.
The SRO GT series use a much slower Full Course Yellow procedure which requires the cars to slow down to pit limiter speeds – however when the track is clear the Safety Car is then used to speed the cars up and bring the tyres, brakes etc. back up to temperature before the racing resumes. This makes for quite long neutralisation periods which could again be problematic for F1 if a similar “warm-up” period was required – I don’t know how the cars would respond to being required to drive for long periods at pit limiter speeds.
The only real change I would like to see is something to prevent SC/VSC periods being used for free pit stops. Perhaps the mandatory tyre change should only be permitted under green flag running, or the pit exit should be closed until the safety car has picked up the leader.
MichaelN
14th April 2025, 14:20
The problem with one car passing a slow zone once and another twice is indeed a problem, but this can be quite easily solved by closing the pitlane and, thanks to F1’s much smaller field, simply lifting the zone once everyone has gone through the same number of times. At worst it’ll be around a minute longer than strictly necessary, and since nobody has gone through the pitlane, it shouldn’t be too hard to figure out when everyone has gone through the zone again.
The fact that in 2023 they had like an hour long barrier repair under a slow zone at Le Mans makes me extremely dubious about the use of a safety car. It really is a very, very severe tool, and almost never really needed.
roadrunner (@roadrunner)
14th April 2025, 12:37
A VSC does have the same implications on strategy. They (except for Ferrari) were all in the VSC window so they would have pitted anyway. We would have all cars on the same strategy again without the “excitement” of the field being bunched together. We should have VSC with the pit lane closed like they have in GP2.
But in general I don’t think any kind of SC was necessary in this event as the debris was of a different quality as in Qatar and (to my knowledge) already cleared by cars before the safety car even came out. Also in Qatar it wasn’t necessary the debris that caused the punctures, but the field refusing to pit in expectation of it, knowing that nowadays every tiny incident usually triggers it.
Jere (@jerejj)
15th April 2025, 7:34
SteveP See my reply to Dude above. In short here, the the field was barely spread out, so the interval period of nearly 30 seconds between Hulkenberg & Piastri driving through the relevant section was more than enough for VSC.
Sonny Crockett (@sonnycrockett)
14th April 2025, 18:09
What clauses are there in Lando’s contract?
McLaren to swap him for Max next year and we get to see the Dutchman in an orange car?!
Obvs total speculation!
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
14th April 2025, 21:22
W/ Merc and McLaren being the best two cars right now, its pretty impressive to see Bearman keep that rocketship behind him.
Is Mercedes opening up their engines for the last season of v6’s ? What ever it is, they clearly have the best power unit on the grid, and Max’s Red Bull has no real efficient DRS or straight line advantage that he has or had in the previous years.