Welcome to Friday’s edition of the RaceFans round-up.
Comment of the day
The first official video of the Madring did not impress many readers:
It’s Jeddah, trying to throw in a bit of Laguna Seca without the elevation changes, and Zandvoort, whilst trying to pretend it’s the old Valencia circuit. No overtaking spots, lots of clumsy Mickey Mouse sections.
Clearly designed by somebody that has never seen an F1 car, let alone a race. Mark (@Mrcento)
'The F1 Commission discussed in principle refinements to the energy management strategy for 2026, as well as measures to address financial issues that can be faced by power unit manufacturers that experience either low performance or significant reliability issues in 2026. All of these topics will be discussed in more detail among the specialists in the appropriate advisory committees.'
'As Carlos came in for the stop, We're reliant on the gunmen connecting the wheel guns inside the wheel into the axle before the car is stationary and then pulling the trigger almost simultaneously with that at the same time. It's part of the reason why you can get yourself into these sub-two second wheel changeover times. Everything just has to sequence together very nicely. Now, we need to improve our systems to make sure that we're not just reliant on a human being in that circumstance. Clearly, missing a nut is going to happen, and that's some of the improvements that will be coming across the next few races.'
'A Dartmouth College research team came up with the estimated pollution caused by 111 companies, with more than half of the total dollar figure coming from 10 fossil fuel providers: Saudi Aramco (F1 and Aston Martin sponsor), Gazprom, Chevron, ExxonMobil (Red Bull sponsor), BP (Audi sponsor), Shell (Ferrari sponsor), National Iranian Oil Co., Pemex, Coal India and the British Coal Corporation.'
Trouble in Turn 1! 🫣@TakumaSatoRacer's No. 75 is stopped on the track after heavy contact.
On COTD: given current cars limitations and commercial interests, we should find more comfort accepting that most new tracks will tend to provide only high speed parades.
Sure, I don’t think many of us expected anything we would really like from Madrid, just like hardly anyone really gets into the hype the broadcasters make of the “excitement” of races like Jeddah, Abu Dhabi, Quatar, Miami or Las Vegas.
Doesn’t mean we can’t complain about this being the current state of things in a sport we love though!
it won’t matter. The engine manufacturers can’t compete with a firm like Mercedes who have probably been working on the engine for over 5 years easy.
The only thing a budget cap does keep people from catching manufacturers like Mercedes, who have hidden the costs of production with the likes of their parent firms.
It’s either BOP, or get rid of regulations that limit manufacturers who are not in bed with the FIA and their rule making.
Ferrari or Honda could just as equally begin the upcoming PU cycle in the best competitive position as Mercedes & ultimately no manufacturer (current or upcoming) has been working on the upcoming concept for more than five years already since nothing was even properly decided that far in advance & certainly no existing manufacturer has been working longer than any other existing one just like last time.
The engine manufacturers can’t compete with a firm like Mercedes who have probably been working on the engine for over 5 years easy.
“The engine manufacturers” ?? You mean like Mercedes?
Cadillac, Mercedes, Renault (dropping out on PU) Audi, Ferrari, RBR/Ford – Note there’s road car and engine manufacture in all of those, although RBR have imported help.
An amendment to the Financial Regulations was agreed in respect of capital expenditure allowance for new entrants, this being necessary ahead of the arrival of Cadillac Formula 1 team in 2026.
Specifically mentioning Cadillac. I don’t see their problem, they have a budget to spend on the chassis, buy customer engines, and spread the cost of their own PU development over 5 years.
Five years being based on them targeting 2029 delivery from a project started in the end of 2024, probably like Microsoft, Cisco etc. late and incomplete spec.
All sensible guesses are that they will mark it as a prototype, and make the mods for the new regs and actually introduce in 2030.
I am agreeing with @pcxmac on the Budget cap of engines, the companies developing engines are all huge and can afford it easy. No cap means the others who didn’t nail it can catchup with the best ones.
Isn’t the issue they are discussing simply the fact they agreed BEFORE starting on putting a cost cap on the development and sale of the engines, explicitly to avoid “biggest spender wins it” but also cause “whoa, HOW expensive are these engines”?
Which means that when a manufacturer finds themselves severely on the backfoot, they might find that they then have a problem because they aren’t allowed to spend as much as they would like to catch up. Meaning their engine is basically doomed. So the FIA is discussing mechanisms to work out what happens with that, probably putting up some frame work to allow exceptional circumstances to allow extra money being spent to catch up.
I don’t really get all the early hate the Madring configuration has received.
I agree to some extent that the configuration could be even better, but overall, it’s still decently flowing, which makes it seemingly enjoyable to drive.
I’m positive nothing like the token system ten years ago would be implemented to help any manufacturer that might start slow or unreliable since that system was basically useless, but temporarily giving a higher PU budget cap allowance for the purpose could realistically work in helping to catch up & improve reliability should any manufacturer end up in such a situation.
As for the energy management aspect, tweaks in the form of having the ICE-electric power ratio more towards the former for races & sprints is something that has been on the table.
Perhaps such a tweak could work, so we’ll see whether the 50-50 split remains without exceptions or gets tweaked for all race-like sessions, albeit I’ve been somewhat skeptical about all these claims of running out of battery halfway through a straight/downshifting long before braking zones, etc.
We may be in the minority in these comments, but I’m with you on the recent street circuits. This breed of semipermanent hybrid “street” circuits are racier and more interesting and varied than most of the street circuits of decades past, like Phoenix, Detroit, and Valencia. And I liked the modifications to Melbourne.
What was wrong with 2014? We had a great title battle because the leading team had two capable drivers that were equally treated. We also had the excitement of the emergence of who everybody thought was going to be the next big thing (Daniel Ricciardo).
I’m not too bothered about one team dominating, as long as there is a race to watch.
I think the Brazilian contender really needs to own his mistakes instead of deflecting.
Every other driver, including his teammate*, dealt with the situation generated by a rival team** without running a made for TV amusement, clown show.
1. His team should not have done a sort of, brief, false-start for his exit
2. He shouldn’t have pulled away with the fuel hose still attached, even if the team (briefly) indicated it was OK.
3. Having done so, he shouldn’t have driven the full length of the pit lane with the pit crew running, Keystone Kop style, after him.
He can sue the team for item 1, they can counter-sue for 2 and agree to disagree, and item 3 is all on him.
Possibly time to mention that every Youtube etc video of “the funniest incidents in F1” and similar title, seems to miss the absolute funniest.
*His teammate having an unfortunate accident a few laps from the end while chasing P4
** A team whose lead driver benefitted (unwittingly he says) massively, but mentioning that is just “British Bias” – even you aren’t a Brit and think he knew.
None of 1-3 are relevant for the case. This is about whether the FIA handled Singapore 2008 wrongly. If it did, then how Ferrari responded is legally irrelevant. The only options the court’s likely to have are these:
1. Rule the FIA was in its rights to do what it did (either because it did not have the knowledge, or ruling as it did was permitted in context) – nothing changes.
(Potential 1b. Court rules the FIA did not have the context because Bernie Ecclestone or A N Other did not pass the information along properly. FIA cleared, result stays the same, path opened to sue Bernie/A N Other for money).
2. Rule the FIA had prior knowledge and didn’t act on it correctly – cancel the result, or treat the race has having finished before the crash. Either way, Hamilton loses enough points compared to Massa that the championship flips to a Massa championship. Since that would be a legal ruling, the FIA would be compelled to change the result.
Had the FIA handled the matter immediately (as it is alleged it could have done), then subtler methods would have been available to it.
Hilarious. maybe thy should learn what is the Scientific Method before
Since you mention it, you might recall the requirement for peer review of their source data and methods. This quote from the article below would therefore be relevant:
“All methods they use are quite robust,” said Imperial College London climate scientist Friederike Otto,”
So, now I will ask what your experience of the Scientific Method amounts to, and whether you read the full article…
Hilarious. maybe thy should learn what is the Scientific Method before
Since you mention it, you might recall the requirement for peer review of their source data and methods. This quote from the article below would therefore be relevant:
“All methods they use are quite robust,” said Imperial College London climate scientist Friederike Otto,”
So, now I will ask what your experience of the Scientific Method amounts to, and whether you read the full article…
Gusm.ai
25th April 2025, 2:15
On COTD: given current cars limitations and commercial interests, we should find more comfort accepting that most new tracks will tend to provide only high speed parades.
BasCB (@bascb)
25th April 2025, 6:37
Sure, I don’t think many of us expected anything we would really like from Madrid, just like hardly anyone really gets into the hype the broadcasters make of the “excitement” of races like Jeddah, Abu Dhabi, Quatar, Miami or Las Vegas.
Doesn’t mean we can’t complain about this being the current state of things in a sport we love though!
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
25th April 2025, 6:57
it won’t matter. The engine manufacturers can’t compete with a firm like Mercedes who have probably been working on the engine for over 5 years easy.
The only thing a budget cap does keep people from catching manufacturers like Mercedes, who have hidden the costs of production with the likes of their parent firms.
It’s either BOP, or get rid of regulations that limit manufacturers who are not in bed with the FIA and their rule making.
Jere (@jerejj)
25th April 2025, 7:08
Ferrari or Honda could just as equally begin the upcoming PU cycle in the best competitive position as Mercedes & ultimately no manufacturer (current or upcoming) has been working on the upcoming concept for more than five years already since nothing was even properly decided that far in advance & certainly no existing manufacturer has been working longer than any other existing one just like last time.
SteveP
25th April 2025, 7:25
“The engine manufacturers” ?? You mean like Mercedes?
Cadillac, Mercedes, Renault (dropping out on PU) Audi, Ferrari, RBR/Ford – Note there’s road car and engine manufacture in all of those, although RBR have imported help.
Specifically mentioning Cadillac. I don’t see their problem, they have a budget to spend on the chassis, buy customer engines, and spread the cost of their own PU development over 5 years.
Five years being based on them targeting 2029 delivery from a project started in the end of 2024, probably like Microsoft, Cisco etc. late and incomplete spec.
All sensible guesses are that they will mark it as a prototype, and make the mods for the new regs and actually introduce in 2030.
MacLeod (@macleod)
25th April 2025, 7:52
I am agreeing with @pcxmac on the Budget cap of engines, the companies developing engines are all huge and can afford it easy. No cap means the others who didn’t nail it can catchup with the best ones.
MichaelN
25th April 2025, 10:28
Everyone in F1 had been working on the engine for years.
The 2026 changes to the engine are vastly overstated.
Jere (@jerejj)
25th April 2025, 13:37
MichaelN
Indeed. Everyone has been working on the concept ever since it got formally ratified & work officially permitted.
BasCB (@bascb)
26th April 2025, 10:26
Isn’t the issue they are discussing simply the fact they agreed BEFORE starting on putting a cost cap on the development and sale of the engines, explicitly to avoid “biggest spender wins it” but also cause “whoa, HOW expensive are these engines”?
Which means that when a manufacturer finds themselves severely on the backfoot, they might find that they then have a problem because they aren’t allowed to spend as much as they would like to catch up. Meaning their engine is basically doomed. So the FIA is discussing mechanisms to work out what happens with that, probably putting up some frame work to allow exceptional circumstances to allow extra money being spent to catch up.
Jere (@jerejj)
25th April 2025, 7:16
I don’t really get all the early hate the Madring configuration has received.
I agree to some extent that the configuration could be even better, but overall, it’s still decently flowing, which makes it seemingly enjoyable to drive.
I’m positive nothing like the token system ten years ago would be implemented to help any manufacturer that might start slow or unreliable since that system was basically useless, but temporarily giving a higher PU budget cap allowance for the purpose could realistically work in helping to catch up & improve reliability should any manufacturer end up in such a situation.
As for the energy management aspect, tweaks in the form of having the ICE-electric power ratio more towards the former for races & sprints is something that has been on the table.
Perhaps such a tweak could work, so we’ll see whether the 50-50 split remains without exceptions or gets tweaked for all race-like sessions, albeit I’ve been somewhat skeptical about all these claims of running out of battery halfway through a straight/downshifting long before braking zones, etc.
MichaelN
25th April 2025, 10:30
The 50-50 split is true on paper, but isn’t an average over a race. The MGU output is capped linear to speed precisely to prevent the ES running out.
Coventry Climax
25th April 2025, 13:25
A walled-in single track oval is also ‘decently flowing’. And makes for splendidly decent processions.
Mark Z.
25th April 2025, 16:48
We may be in the minority in these comments, but I’m with you on the recent street circuits. This breed of semipermanent hybrid “street” circuits are racier and more interesting and varied than most of the street circuits of decades past, like Phoenix, Detroit, and Valencia. And I liked the modifications to Melbourne.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
25th April 2025, 11:47
2026 have failure written all over it. It’s a good thing F1 is terrified of another 2014 so they are working on tweaking it.
rprp
25th April 2025, 12:06
What was wrong with 2014? We had a great title battle because the leading team had two capable drivers that were equally treated. We also had the excitement of the emergence of who everybody thought was going to be the next big thing (Daniel Ricciardo).
I’m not too bothered about one team dominating, as long as there is a race to watch.
S Arkazam
25th April 2025, 18:08
Will he still be runner-up when turning 45? ;)
SteveP
25th April 2025, 19:05
I think the Brazilian contender really needs to own his mistakes instead of deflecting.
Every other driver, including his teammate*, dealt with the situation generated by a rival team** without running a made for TV amusement, clown show.
1. His team should not have done a sort of, brief, false-start for his exit
2. He shouldn’t have pulled away with the fuel hose still attached, even if the team (briefly) indicated it was OK.
3. Having done so, he shouldn’t have driven the full length of the pit lane with the pit crew running, Keystone Kop style, after him.
He can sue the team for item 1, they can counter-sue for 2 and agree to disagree, and item 3 is all on him.
Possibly time to mention that every Youtube etc video of “the funniest incidents in F1” and similar title, seems to miss the absolute funniest.
*His teammate having an unfortunate accident a few laps from the end while chasing P4
** A team whose lead driver benefitted (unwittingly he says) massively, but mentioning that is just “British Bias” – even you aren’t a Brit and think he knew.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
27th April 2025, 9:37
None of 1-3 are relevant for the case. This is about whether the FIA handled Singapore 2008 wrongly. If it did, then how Ferrari responded is legally irrelevant. The only options the court’s likely to have are these:
1. Rule the FIA was in its rights to do what it did (either because it did not have the knowledge, or ruling as it did was permitted in context) – nothing changes.
(Potential 1b. Court rules the FIA did not have the context because Bernie Ecclestone or A N Other did not pass the information along properly. FIA cleared, result stays the same, path opened to sue Bernie/A N Other for money).
2. Rule the FIA had prior knowledge and didn’t act on it correctly – cancel the result, or treat the race has having finished before the crash. Either way, Hamilton loses enough points compared to Massa that the championship flips to a Massa championship. Since that would be a legal ruling, the FIA would be compelled to change the result.
Had the FIA handled the matter immediately (as it is alleged it could have done), then subtler methods would have been available to it.
AlexS
25th April 2025, 20:05
Hilarious. maybe thy should learn what is the Scientific Method before…
SteveP
27th April 2025, 10:58
Hilarious. maybe thy should learn what is the Scientific Method before
SteveP
27th April 2025, 11:01
Try again, with better formatting…
Since you mention it, you might recall the requirement for peer review of their source data and methods. This quote from the article below would therefore be relevant:
So, now I will ask what your experience of the Scientific Method amounts to, and whether you read the full article…
Ferdi
29th April 2025, 12:16
Sounds like an ideal discriminatory instrument to script outcomes of championships, so it is right up Liberty and the FIA’s alley.