Formula 1 drivers warned the sport’s bosses against introducing changes which would make it seem “artificial and fake”, Max Verstappen has said.
The Red Bull driver made his remarks after drivers criticised a plan to replace qualifying sessions with reverse grid races at up to three rounds next year.“Us drivers had a meeting with the Formula 1 owners,” Verstappen told his official website. “We spoke a lot about what we want as drivers.
“Nothing has been decided but we don’t want something like American wrestling were everything is artificial and fake. We made clear that is not what we want.
“I think qualifying is good the way it is. I wouldn’t know how to change it,” he added.
Verstappen has previously criticised other developments in the championship recently. He said he did not agree with extending the 2020 F1 calendar to 22 races as it would put team members under too much stress.
The Red Bull driver said plans to overhaul the design of cars in 2021 to make it easier for drivers to follow each other more closely are “looking good”, but warned against further increases in the weight of the cars.
“Currently, the cars would be three seconds per lap slower. That’s quite a lot. I think the cars have to be lighter, but that’s difficult to do with the hybrid power units and the batteries.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2019 F1 season
- Crying in the Melbourne car park at 2019 grand prix was my career low – Ocon
- McLaren Racing reports reduced £71 million loss in 2019
- Kvyat: Hockenheim podium last year was “my biggest achievement” so far
- How the FIA’s new encrypted fuel flow meter targets Ferrari’s suspected ‘aliasing’ trick
- “He smashed my office door”: 23 must-see moments from ‘Drive to Survive’ season two
Robert
5th October 2019, 21:50
Want closer grid? Better racing? Other sports create parity by allowing the worst teams to pick the best upcoming players. Why not create a similar opportunity for lower place F1 teams by allowing them more testing days and the better teams get fewer testing days? Then weekends aren’t distorted with silly patchwork notions that interrupt proper racing, and hopefully we can see those lower teams slowly working their way up the grid with hardwork rather than gimmicks..
Jimmi Cynic (@jimmi-cynic)
5th October 2019, 22:28
The problem with giving the poorer teams (if the term ‘poor’ can be used anywhere in the paddock without glances of incredulity)… is they can’t/won’t afford it. This season, Williams couldn’t be bothered to utilize all the testing time available.
Out of the 10 current teams, there’s only 2 teams that one might consider less financially endowed than others; Williams and Haas. Racing Point, like RBR (and even Haas) are funded by billionaires. Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault are supported by huge multi-national corporations with vast resources. I’m including Sauberomeo in the prancing horse family now. The last ‘independent’ team, McLaren is funded by a rich oil baron’s sovereign wealth fund.
So… where are these poor disadvantaged teams in F1? If Liberty/FIA wants to subsidize the technically less competent teams in the spirit ‘better racing’, they need to supply better engineers to these teams, not reverse qualy grids.
The hue and cry for more racing parity from Liberty/FOM and their paid mouthpieces seems much more like a sideshow to distract from the, so far unexpressed, prospect of a Formula Spec 1 series. A spec F1 series would give Liberty far more control and more significantly, more profits for their shareholders – and Bernie’s used car loan.
Robert
5th October 2019, 23:09
Gotta better idea? I didn’t realize I had to write the cannon on a proposal for the essence of an idea to make sense.
Robbie (@robbie)
6th October 2019, 3:50
I have a better idea. Let Liberty and Brawn do as they are doing with budget caps, better money distribution, and cars far less dependent on clean air. That stuff is pretty much decided. If they’re sweating details like experimenting to see if there is an even more exciting way to qualify, that’s a good sign that the real important stuff is pretty much agreed.
Robert
6th October 2019, 4:17
You’re talking about close racing, of which I agree… we’re going down a logical and exciting path. I’m talking about parity, seeing the lowest teams have a chance to innovate and work themselves up the grid. I can imagine BOTH having a positive effect on the sport.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
6th October 2019, 9:38
@robbie While the regulations are still under discussion until the end of this month, the financial element was nailed down as a condition of the smaller teams permitting the delay. Your assessment is correct.
anon
6th October 2019, 9:47
@robbie, I wouldn’t necessarily say that it is “a good sign that the real important stuff is pretty much agreed” – it is also possible they could be arguing over details such as qualifying races because those main discussions have bogged down, which has caused arguments to flare up elsewhere.
After all, the sport has already missed the first sign off date for the 2021 regulations back in June – it was postponed to this month, but we are still waiting for the formal announcement they have been signed off too. There was an indication that some of Todt’s comments, such as suggesting they bring refuelling back in, had only made things worse by reopening discussions on areas of the regulations the teams had thought were settled, but which the FIA then threw into doubt.
I think it is also worth holding a certain reserve over the proposed 2021 regulation change and the overall impact on wheel to wheel racing, simply because we did have a similar situation in 2009. It is worth noting that the 2009 rule change went through a similar process – it is worth noting that the 2009 rule changes had two car wind tunnel tests (i.e. testing what happened to a trailing car when it was behind another car), so it wasn’t as if they weren’t trying to test the wake effects – and yet the unexpected avenues that the designers could find undid much of that work over time.
Bruno Verrari
6th October 2019, 12:02
OK.
And continue with a V10 series under full design and race freedom!
Robbie (@robbie)
6th October 2019, 14:43
@anon I don’t get the vibe that anything is ‘bogged down’ nor that ‘arguments’ have ‘flared up elsewhere.’
That they missed the sign off date of June is not automatically a bad thing. It means they have been carefully and deliberately giving all the teams their say and taking everything into account before making things official. If it is even a fact that Todt said something that caused further discussion and delay, that’s ok. We learned that the only upside for refuelling for example would have been to reduce the cars’ racing weight, but there are too many negatives to it for that to be the decider. Nobody can say they didn’t at least examine it thoroughly.
In my opinion 09 is irrelevant as there was never the motivation there for them to follow through with their findings. Not only was the R&D far less extensive back then, the four top teams had been given the power to decide on this type of thing and they decided to stay heavily addicted to aero downforce and thus clean air dependence. Of course they opted to continue to make cars that made a lot of wake to disrupt their trailing rivals. The basic infrastructure of the cars was not going to change, just the wing shapes and locations on cars still heavily dependent on clean air no matter what tweaks they did to wings. As we know of Brawn’s work the difference between now and 09 is night and day. Not just in his R&D, but what will be the actual and real follow through of implementing the discoveries from said far more extensive R&D.
anon
6th October 2019, 15:32
@robbie, there are still lessons to learn from the ’09 changes, because I wouldn’t agree that they were quite as you paint them as being and I wouldn’t say that it is totally irrelevant.
I am not sure that I would say that it is an automatic given that “the R&D was far less extensive back then”, as there was still a fairly significant amount of thought and consideration that went into producing those regulations (the use of the neutral profile wing, which testing indicated reduced downforce losses behind other cars, is an example of that).
In some areas, the 2021 rule set does seem to draw on the 2009 rule set – some of the changes to the rear wing design, for example, go back to those same principals (the way that the rear wing is intended to function, which is to make the wake go upwards, was what the 2009 wing was intended to do, and indeed the 2021 rules are shifting the rear wing upwards to a similar position as in 2009).
I am not sure that I would agree with the assertion either that “they opted to continue to make cars that made a lot of wake to disrupt their trailing rivals”, as increasing the turbulent wake of the car can have its own negative impact on the leading car as well (potential increases in the drag the car generates, potentially accidentally having an adverse impact on flow structures downstream of the device generating turbulence and so forth).
I don’t think it is necessarily so much of “they opted to continue to make cars that made a lot of wake to disrupt their trailing rivals” as more of a case that there were areas in the rules which could be exploited to increase the downforce produced by the car. For example, if you look back to some of the front wings that were developed in 2009, quite a few teams initially kept to the same style of inwashing front wings that had been used up until 2008 – including a number of those “four top teams” you say helped develop those rules in the first place.
It took a while before even some of the major teams realised the performance potential, mainly because they hadn’t realised that option existed in the rules to begin with – you still had a lot of figures who initially approached the 2009 rule set in terms of what they were used to in the mid 2000s because that was their frame of reference, so they brought that design philosophy to their initial 2009 design studies.
With that, I still have some reservations because, even now, that is something that I can see happening to the 2021 rule set as well. However well intentioned they may be, Brawn and his researchers will almost certainly not cover off all possible outcomes – I expect it would be practically impossible to do so – and I would not be surprised if there are still areas in the regulations which end up having rather unexpected consequences that end up counteracting part or all of the work they’ve done to date.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
6th October 2019, 9:37
Robert, Williams has one of the best three upcoming drivers this year. It didn’t help. In fact, they had two of the best four drivers who were in F1 in 2019 that weren’t in 2018, because they picked two out of the four.
The problems are in the car, the team and the sponsor deck, driver quality (assuming Superlicence is issuable to the driver) isn’t a big enough factor to overcome that, and Williams knows it – which is why the drivers are also the two out of the four that bring the most cash.
Forcing Williams to do what it is already doing doesn’t change anything, and forcing it to ignore finances when selecting drivers will make it perform worse. Hence so much hope being carried on the 2021 financial redistribution. (Though Williams gets a $10 m historical payment, so probably less use to them than it might initially appear).
Magnus Rubensson (@)
6th October 2019, 10:41
I only went to one F1 race for real – the 1987 British GP at Silverstone. The two Williams-Hondas of Mansell and Piquet lapped everyone else including Senna’s Lotus in third. Still, I went home very happy and could not have asked for a better experience.
One car that I will never forget was the blue no 21 Osella-Alfa driven by Alex Caffi. One-car team, shoestring budget I’m sure, 8 seconds off the pace in quali but Caffi still gave it all there was and then some. There was something genuinely positive about that car (others too, but that blue thing sticks in my mind particularly). It was great seeing it go by.
In the race I suspect they only filled the Osella with half a tank… Caffi put the pedal to the metal for 25 laps and kept up surprisingly well as I recall. The blue car then spluttered and finally gave up on lap 32.
It didn’t matter that they (and all other cars) were way off the Williams pace. I take my hat off to the Osellas, the AGS, the Leyton House March, the Tyrrells, Beatrice-Lolas, Minardis, Ligiers, Zakspeeds, Arrows-Megatrons… all of them made my race a great experience.
Another thing I remember is watching qualifying at the old Stowe and Club corners. I watched the tyres on corner exits. Alboreto, Berger, Prost, Piquet, Boutsen, Fabi etc. … all of the top drivers had 1-2 inches tarmac to spare exiting the corners. Mansell was obviously very fast and close to the tarmac edge.
Senna… = rear tyre edge exactly on the tarmac edge, every fast lap spot on corner exit. Go figure.
Chaitanya
7th October 2019, 5:12
So similar to MotoGP with smaller teams getting concession.
Chaitanya
7th October 2019, 5:13
Also need fairer distribution of prize money dropping the current one where Italian Mafia sucks money from smaller teams on grid.
Sven (@crammond)
5th October 2019, 22:49
It kinda seems like the whole point of this experiment is to shut up whoever it is that cannot stop wanting to tamper with qualifying.
I am torn, however, whether I want those 3 experiments to take place at the most bland and forgettable tracks (so we don’t lose a real quali at a good track), or whether I’d want that reverse-grid shortish quali-race (where a flat tyre or some front wing damage means you’ll start at the back) to be in Monaco just to make the ridiculousness stick out more.
Klon (@)
5th October 2019, 23:55
“Is turning it into Lucha Libre fine?” is the first smarmy comment that springs to mind.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
6th October 2019, 9:39
I assume Max said “American” rather than just wrestling because this is Liberty’s proposal and Liberty is American.
DB-C90 (@dbradock)
6th October 2019, 0:17
The concept of this “let’s try something different while we can – people might like it” is something the Ross/Liberty have been spouting as a reason to try changing qualifying for 2020.
We’re now seeing (finally) the top 3 teams running closer than ever before and actually have competition right at the front.
So let’s imagine how unfair these trials will be if Charles loses the WDC, or Lewis does because the end up being forced to start near the back, not because they didn’t qualify well, but because of this incredible stupid idea that the new Bernie keeps pushing.
Let’s be realistic. You can’t say “the faster cars will make a lot of passes in a reverse grid race” – it’s simply one possible outcome. I’ve seen a heap of those sorts of races end up with pretty much the same starting order because the drivers all try too hard right from the start and most of the race ends up being safety car lap after safety char lap so virtually none of the running order changes.
Imagine …. losing the WDC not because it was something you did, but something the new Bernie’s did. Imagine losing the WCC for the same reason. “OH but the Fans loves it…. yeah I love watching lap after lap of safety car”
Robbie (@robbie)
6th October 2019, 4:00
@dbradock I won’t be surprised if they do these experiments in the first half of the season so that there are still plenty of points to play for with respect to affecting the Championships.
Also, by getting the teams to unanimously agree, then they will have agreed to accept the results of the experimental quali(s) ie. their starting positions for Sunday. They won’t be able to complain, obviously particularly if a given driver doesn’t qualify as high as he might normally have for whatever reason, because they will have accepted and agreed to take part in the experiment.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
6th October 2019, 9:40
@robbie The teams can and will complain if they feel it’s appropriate. They unanimously agreed to the 2016 qualifying experiment and forced it to be abandoned after two races after it proved to be a total mess.
anon
6th October 2019, 9:59
@alianora-la-canta, wasn’t there even the suggestion that the teams knew it was a bad idea, but allowed it to go ahead with the knowledge that, once the backlash kicked in, they knew they could force the organisers to go back to the old system immediately?
They agreed to it, but were rather less keen to support the idea in public (and even leaked stories to the press criticising the idea) – a tactic that meant they kept on the good side of FOM, but at the same time limited the damage to them as most of the public outcry went towards FOM, who had been more outspoken in its support for the change.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a similar thing is going on here – they’ll agree to it, but won’t offer much public support for it and let FOM take the criticism. I imagine that they’re going to want Liberty Media to take the brunt of any backlash, particularly if we were to see an event where a high profile driver was taken out of the race – say, for example, if there was a crash that involved a driver like Verstappen, Leclerc, Hamilton etc. – and especially if it then compromised the ability of those drivers to compete in the main race.
Robbie (@robbie)
6th October 2019, 15:09
@alianora-la-canta I would suggest that had they used one quali to experiment with the idea in 2015, everyone’s knickers wouldn’t have had to be in a knot for the first few weeks of 2016 with a sudden reversal after widespread condemnation from all parties…drivers, teams, and fans. BE was in charge and didn’t organize an experiment first. By experimenting in 2020 and then confirming everyone’s feelings on, in this case reverse grid mini-races, ahead of 2021, they can avoid such a debacle and go into 2021 with a set decision on what quali will look like for the season and likely for the long haul.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
10th October 2019, 23:59
@robbie Given that we got two attempts at that horrible qualifying against the teams’ protests because the powers-that-be claimed one attempt wasn’t enough to prove the technique was a failure, I am not so sure that is how it would go.
Robbie (@robbie)
11th October 2019, 16:36
@alianora-la-canta Oh for sure that is possible but it just seems to have a different feel this time, no? First, the teams/Brawn need to sort what an alternative quali might look like, then all the teams have to agree to experiment. I think if it gets to the point of all teams agreeing on a format and an experiment then by that time they will have agreed it is something worthy of the experiment. Then if the experiment passes muster and if the new format is actually implemented for 2021, it will have been well vetted, including in front of the fans for the world to see, which is not what happened in 2016. I just don’t see a sudden surprise overwhelming negative reaction coming at the start of 2021 like happened in 2016. Anything so overwhelmingly disliked as the 2016 change will have been discarded well before the start of the 2021 season.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
15th October 2019, 17:42
@robbie No, I don’t get a different feel, because so far I have seen no evidence to justify a different feeling. Especially since all teams allegedly agreed on the 2016 debacle, and even that bar has not yet been reached here.
DB-C90 (@dbradock)
6th October 2019, 10:41
@robbie that may seem fair but even this year, if that had happened early in the season, the Merc’s may not have achieved the number of 1,2 s that they did and they’re potentially not going to be in a position to get them in the back half, given that Ferrari have finally gotten on top of things. That I’m sure would not have made Toto happy.
Other seasons, the one where Button won the WDC have very much been set up in the first half and it went down to the wire, because his advantage wasn’t maintained, but quite often, the WDC/WCC is decided with several races to go.
A season should be decided with equal opportunity throughout it. If anything, experiments should be held only at the end of any season, like the last few, AFTER the WDC/WCC has been decided, not before. At that point I’d have no problem at all with “experiments” as they’d have no potential impact on outcomes and might actually generate some real interest.
If we have a season that goes down to the wire, then hold off on the experiments because they’re not needed. Hopefully next year, they’ll hold off until the season has a chance to delve op before they throw something like reverse grid qualifying into the mix. That way no one could suggest there’s been any unfairness.
Robbie (@robbie)
6th October 2019, 15:26
@dbradock I think other than Mercedes’ and LH fans, many wouldn’t have minded a few less Mercedes 1-2’s, and we certainly should not be concerned about what one team principal’s happiness level is. And theoretically Ferrari would have benefitted in your hypothesis. If indeed Ferrari have gotten on top of things now, which remains to be seen, then they would hypothetically then feel some of the pain Mercedes would have felt in the first half in your sample scenario. This assumes that you are correct in that the reverse grid mini-races would change things much, and that remains to be seen too. Perhaps it might be a more exciting way to achieve similar results. The cream will still rise to the top and even if some of the usual and predictable top qualifiers start some races a little further back, that won’t be for long as we often see top drivers starting from the back and still achieving high points. Starting from fifth or sixth isn’t the end of the world for them and can be exciting for us.
Brawn simply wants to experiment in a real world setting rather than just making a decision without all the evidence. He would not be able to predict that 2020 won’t go down to the wire such that experimenting with the quali after the season has been decided is an option. There may still be battles for WCC even if the WDC is decided. I say if the teams agree to this experimentation, better to do it when there will still be tons of points for which to play.
anon
6th October 2019, 15:42
@dbradock, even in that case, it might be the case that it doesn’t have an impact for the biggest teams, but the situation for the midfield pack might be rather different.
In their case, the difference in points can be much more marginal – for example, in 2018 the difference between 6th and 9th place in the WCC was less than 30 points, and 6th to 8th were only 14 points apart. This year, 5th to 7th is covered by 16 points, with 6th and 7th only 3 points apart – the margins are still very small there and can easily fluctuate from race to race.
With that in mind, a single fluke result would have a highly distorting effect for the midfield pack – both in a positive and negative way – and I imagine that a midfield team would be especially angry if they ended up slipping 1 or 2 places down the WCC because another team lucked out during one of those races.
@HoHum (@hohum)
6th October 2019, 0:30
Have to agree with Max, but I’m wondering ; Is American (WWC ?) wrestling still as popular as it once was, or has the novelty worn off ? Apart from D. Trump doing a ringside cameo popping up regularly, wrestling seems to be completely off the radar here. If wrestling viewership is falling it should be a warning for liberty, if viewership is still rising I guess they’ll have to bring back Maldonado to wear a black mask and together with Vettel crash into the leaders.
ColdFly (@)
6th October 2019, 9:39
The fans who followed the fake wrestling now seem to flock to darts. @hohum
I predict they will soon merge with the Eurovision Song Contest crowd.
We will never see the real F1 fans wear creative head gear to show their support for a team. Cue Japanese GP ;)
JohnH (@johnrkh)
6th October 2019, 11:29
@coldfly They wrecked the darts when they banned grog.
@HoHum (@hohum)
6th October 2019, 13:00
@coldfly, Good ! get Crofty to call the Eurovision darts championship.
instead of F1.
JohnH (@johnrkh)
6th October 2019, 1:05
Gimmicks hype razzamataz will not save F1. Next yr we may be (hopefully) looking at 4 teams (Merc,Ferrari,RB,MacLaren) fighting for podiums. With Racing Point (Perez) battling with HAAS possibly ‘Alfa’ and *Renault for best of the rest. It very well could be the best season for some time as the teams close up on performance and the drivers settle into the cars.
Fiddling around with qualy and silly reverse grid races will do nothing to improve the quality of F1.
*Really know about Renault, heaps of potential but just can’t pull it together. They’ll have two top flight drivers next yr, I would love to see them up the pointy end but so far they are a disappointment.
Robbie (@robbie)
6th October 2019, 15:33
@johnrkh What you suggest might be the best season for some time next year, is unfortunately yet another season with the most offending gimmick of them all…DRS. You’re right. Gimmicks will not save F1. DRS must go (lol or at least be rendered unnecessary even if still available in 2021). Let’s let them work towards DRS free racing so that the excitement is genuine and not rife with free and forgettable passes.
David BR (@david-br)
6th October 2019, 2:06
Good to see Max is still around. I’ve missed him on track though, when’s he due back from his sabbatical?
MG1982 (@mg1982)
6th October 2019, 5:41
Oh, but he was on-track… together with his GP2 engine! GP2 engine, for crying out loud!
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
6th October 2019, 9:41
Whenever the Red Bull gets back on par with Ferrari and Mercedes. Which could be before the end of the season.
Oconomo
6th October 2019, 12:08
@david-br
That’s odd, given that he’s been on more podiums the last 4 races than 15 other drivers on the grid…..gp2 engine or not.
(How’s Renault doing btw?)
Are you;
Blind?
Stupid?
Resentful?
All of the above?
David BR (@david-br)
6th October 2019, 12:52
@Oconomo Hmm, a difficult but tempting choice. Joking maybe?
Jeorge
7th October 2019, 5:30
Yeah it’s good you vent and let it all out but the since the Summer break Red Bull has been unanimous such that they’re no longer challenging Ferrari anymore
He’s comparing him to the other 4 drivers infront
Stefan vis (@fish)
6th October 2019, 6:22
I think reverse grid won’t do any good as it will only make about ten laps traffic racing, then the order will be restored.
A budget cap won’t work because conglomerate teams find a way to develop stuff in secret Penske workshops, off the books.
The difficult tech rules are the reason that the field is not close, and now most teams start to understand, they come up with different basic specs again! Next year will be the final of the current era, where maybe 4-5 teams could make a run for the front three, but then, 2021 comes around, and we are back to square 1 with drivers leaving, and capped teams struggling to understand the cars. It will be 3 years of procession and one big brand pulling out, followed by the audience.
What helps is to specify an updated formula every three years, 20 races per season, transparant engineering and mandatory knowledge sharing to keep cars in a good flow of evolution, making for closer grids. So tech evo won’t be outlawed, but rather mandatory made available for other teams to buy updates off eachother.
On power tracks they should try team time trials to qualify, this way we see tows and sling shots, and the pure performance of similar cars working together. And not boring traffic tactics that might or might not go well.
One other thing could be sort of a play off, only after the WDC has been established, meaning the last 2 drivers in the standings are to leave the grid, and those teams have to replace them with fresh men and women. The WCC would be a run of three years before an updated formula comes in effect.
The tyre game should be played by teams, not by rules. Freely use them in quali, but you have to use all three tyre types during the race. Meaning in quali on high speeds, teams can find the safest setup without restriction, but in the race they need to find balance to run all three, but timing will play a good part and pit stops are a given and teams get to play around with strategies based on a given, rather than luck and a better home base tactic team.
In caution situations, only use either VSC, or SC. VSC only would be most fair as drivers keep their current position. Green flags is goings. Pitlane closes.
On VC only, use Nascar style restart. In order of race rank, in rows of two, and rolling start in restart zone. Pitlane open.
Stefan vis (@fish)
6th October 2019, 6:37
In a three year WCC series, it is also possible for racing tracks to only have 1 slot per three years. So instead of having 20 tracks hosting annually, there could be about 15 yearly tracks, which leaves 15 slots open for tracks that only host 1 per three years. Making for less predictable racing and better ticket selling. This way epic race tracks can be included, they safe some monnies, while the hype is much bigger. It means hockenheim, Nurnburg, Paul Ricard, Barcelona, Indianapolis, Le Mans, Zandvoort etc. every three years. Pirelli would make special tyres for Indy.
This al makes it possible to combine knowledge and politics with heritage and hype
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
6th October 2019, 6:54
Lol for a while, I’ve been labelling some of what f1 has been doing as wwe, vindicated.
RocketTankski
6th October 2019, 13:38
“I’m calling you out, Mad Max! Ever since you ran me off the road you’ve been runnin’ your mouth! Telling everyone you think you gots what it takes to be Worrld Champion! Well I’m about to shut you up. This Sunday, it’s gonna be you and me. Mano ee mano in the Red Bull Ring. And the whole world will see who the better man is. When I walk out of that arena with the gold still around my waist! As the undisputed World Heavyweight Drivin’ Champion of the World Driving Federation! Boom!” –
Robbie (@robbie)
6th October 2019, 15:27
Lol
jet
6th October 2019, 15:45
I don’t recall him complaining about DRS (I could be wrong though). A artificial advantage initiated by the track itself. Put in place to ‘save’ F1. That is how bad F1 has gotten. All cause the teams refuse to give up their wind tunnel investments. How many years of ‘can’t pass in the wash’ are we going to have? If he wants to lobby, it should be lobbing against aero downforce. He’s not cause he knows he uses DRS. Watching DRS passes makes me want to turn it off. WWE is fake, and so is DRS.
Kringle
6th October 2019, 16:08
All this fiddling and the root of the issue remains. Aerodynamic turbulence. Jesus wept.
Andy Bunting (@wildbiker)
6th October 2019, 18:09
Well said Max & the other drivers.
Barnum & Bailey were great in there day. Then what happened to them?
F1 is about drivers & racing cars.
Not remotely related to a circus show. Or any sort of show business.
Liberty will buggerup F1. Unfortunately.
Come back Bernie All is forgiven!
Pilotjohns
6th October 2019, 20:20
Just let the teams look at all the cars at the end of the season. And any data that was generated. Just like yacht racing. Lets the poorer teams gain some advantage from the stronger teams
Mark in Florida
7th October 2019, 2:01
Gee Max what are gonna do quit F1? Where are you going to drive then in Indy car like most of the rest that leave? Maybe your thinking of Formula E that would be great, nothing artificial there is there? Max be quite
and drive that’s what you get paid to do.
adiai (@adiai)
7th October 2019, 15:13
Drivers don’t like it because everyone will find out they are not as good a driver, they are just running up front because they have better cars……
Derek Clark
29th February 2020, 6:38
Got onto this a bit late. So for what its worth here’s my two bits-
Regarding to quote: ……..
“let’s try something different while we can – people might like it” .
To me f1 is a motor SPORT – its about the best cars and the best drivers – its about competition, and not about what people might like. The new “owners” obviously are less concerned about “competition” – its about the $’s. The Netflix “documentaries” have already started f1’s move into the realm of WWE.
The only way to even things up is by having cost capping.