Petrov apologises after Renault outburst

F1 Fanatic round-up

In the round-up: Vitaly Petrov back-tracks after criticising Renault.

Links

Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:

Vitaly Petrov hits out at Renault over lack of progress (Autosport)

“I couldn’t say in interviews that we lost it with the pitstops, and I cannot talk about that now either. But I can’t keep silent any more – it is over. I can’t keep everything inside any more.”

Boullier says Petrov incident is closed (ESPN)

“We take this incident as exactly this – an incident. Vitaly has apologised to the team and sent an email to all the staff at Enstone. As far as we are concerned, the matter is closed.”

Pedro de la Rosa: The teams must urgently establish and agree a limited schedule of private group tests (Formula Santander)

“It makes perfect sense to me to limit and control tests in order to contain costs, but come on, limiting them to 3 days a season exclusively for ‘young drivers’ seems an exaggeration and an aberration for a sport which should be the prime example of competitiveness and innovation in the world of motor racing competition.”

Time running out for Renault’s Robert Kubica to prove F1 fitness (The Guardian)

Eric Boullier: “The situation with Robert is easy. We have a moral obligation to make sure we give him a chance. I am waiting for him to tell me how he feels. I need a commitment from him.”

SFO eyes probe into F1 bribery allegations (FT, registration required)

“The {serious Fraud Office] told the FT: ‘The SFO is aware of the allegations against Mr Ecclestone and is liaising with the authorities in Germany to ascertain if there is a case in the UK to answer.'”

Formula One: Hellmund says there will be a US Grand Prix if payment is made (Autoweek)

??There’s a solution. If Mr Ecclestone and [Formula One Management] get their money, there’s a Grand Prix next November. It’s that simple.??

Mirko Bortolotti on his Williams F1 test (Formula Two)

“It’s hard to compare the 2011 car with the previous F1 cars [Ferrari and Toro Rosso] I have driven but it’s definitely a step up which I had to get used to. This car has things like KERS and new Pirelli tyres which took time to adjust to and of course the new track.”

Abu Dhabi Grand Prix race video edit

Highlights from last week’s race.

Follow F1 news as it breaks using the F1 Fanatic live Twitter app.

Comment of the day

Javlinsharp’s thoughts on Sebastian Vettel equalling Nigel Mansell’s record of pole positions in a season:

I cant decide what impresses me more, the dominace of Mansell?s car, and all the excellent engineering behind it, or the sheer will and skill from Mansell himself to tar his teammate so badly.

In my opinion this is a prime example of the watered down nature for F1 today, rule books, and other non-racing pressures have taken their toll on the purity of engineering and driving perfection.

The number one car is a warm example that even today, these high ideals can shine through, (Newey?s work is supreme, and Vettle extracted the maximum from it), but the days are gone when some engineer?s genius can be allowed to operate so freely.

Ah well, welcome to the kinder, gentler world where everyone is OK, at the cost of the exemplary.
Javlinsharp

From the forum

Happy birthday!

No F1 Fanatic birthdays today. If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Four years ago today Toyota signed Timo Glock, at the time the reigning GP2 champion, to replace Ralf Schumacher at their team in 2008.

Advert | Go Ad-free

61 comments on Petrov apologises after Renault outburst

  1. Calum (@calum) said on 19th November 2011, 0:04

    I’ll sum up the Mansell-Vettel debate. Both bloody good drivers in bloody good cars. ;)

    • I endorse this summary!

    • Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 19th November 2011, 2:01

      Adrian Newey. Nuff said! :P

    • Mark (@marlarkey) said on 19th November 2011, 9:28

      The Mansell v Vettel debate is interesting but the awesomeness of both seasons is of a different nature.

      Mansell’s was awesome for the way he just blew everyone away, including his teammate, for the entire season. Despite the dominance the season was thoroughly exciting because of anticipating by how much Mansell was going to be ahead this time !! Just think of Mexico and Portugal where he lapped everyone except his team mate in the days before blue flag madness.

      Vettel awesomeness has been in how close it has been. How he has fought for his poles and his wins and how despite the others being so close he has managed to pull that extra little bit out to achieve his poles and wins.

      So Mansell was awesome for the magnitude of the dominance. Vettel was awesome for always pulling out that little bit extra in a closely fought battle with rivals.

  2. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 19th November 2011, 0:04

    I think this Petrov episode was blown out of proportion by the media. And I’m not just saying that because I’m a Petrov fan – reading Eric Boullier’s comments, Petrov said what he said immediately after the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, and then apologised almost as soon as he calmed down. It took a week for his comments to trickle down to the English press, by which time he and the team had already resolved the problem.

  3. Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 19th November 2011, 0:07

    Ah well, welcome to the kinder, gentler world where everyone is OK, at the cost of the exemplary.

    And the reward is the lives of Felipe Massa, Robert Kubica and no doubt quite a few others.

    • DeuceCoop said on 19th November 2011, 0:15

      I don’t think safety improvements are what is being criticized here.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 19th November 2011, 0:16

      @Icthyes I’m surprised to see two people (including the comment from @Trix below) taking this as a reference to safety – I don’t believe it is, that interpretation never even occurred to me.

      I took it as a reference to the regulations reducing the freedom available to engineers in designing their cars. I don’t see anything in the comment that suggests this is a reference to safety.

      Hopefully @javlinsharp will put us straight on this one.

      • Trix (@) said on 19th November 2011, 0:20

        “where everyone is ok” either refers to the obvious
        1) Everyone is safe. Thus safety.
        Either to the less obvious (in my opinion)
        2) Everyone is rested and all that jazz with regards to working hour regulations.
        Either another less obvious reason.

        Over to you @javlinsharp

        • I interpreted “where everyone is OK” as “where everyone is just average.”

          • Trix (@) said on 19th November 2011, 0:45

            I would have expected a “just ok” in that case… Makes more sense from a linguistic point of view as opposed to “exemplary”.

            Just sayin’…

      • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 19th November 2011, 0:23

        But the two go hand in hand nowadays, do they not? Imagine if the cars had been left to roam free since 1992. The speeds they would be doing would be intense and if the cars could survive any accident, the drivers probably wouldn’t.

        I don’t believe the comment was intended to mean “everything is too safe”. But there’s a reason for the demise of purity and that’s safety (plus money, but that’s only been an issue in the last couple of years). It’s pretty hard to separate the two in my opinion.

        • Trix (@) said on 19th November 2011, 0:48

          Mind you, the laws of the market will probably auto-regulate the money issue itself: when too many not-so-good drivers are going to get a seat because of sponsorship deals they bring with them, the sport will lose audience and things will settle down again.

          Plus, some brands/programmes supported by big brands (Red Bull Junior Team for example) will make sure to pick out the best-of-the-best to ensure their brand image (whereas other less engaged sponsors will go for the obvious national choice) and thus they’ll somehow twirl back in the seat.

        • George (@george) said on 19th November 2011, 0:53

          There are plenty of areas that have nothing to do with safety, but have been tightly regulated. Wings all having roughly the same dimensions and frozen engine development, for example.

          • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 19th November 2011, 11:28

            Engines have nothing to do with safety? You mean like the speeds a car would be travelling at if they shunted into the back of someone, or their tyre failed? Wings too are limited, to keep cornering speeds down.

            And believe me, I hate the engines being restricted and are due to be restricted even further, but c’est la vie.

          • George (@george) said on 19th November 2011, 14:23

            @icthyes The engine freeze was a totally monetary decision, there are other ways to limit their performance than simply stopping development.

            You make a fair point on wings, I admit I was mostly thinking about variations in car appearance when I wrote it, but in reality it’s likely the teams would consolidate to one design pretty quickly.

      • Noelinho (@noelinho) said on 19th November 2011, 0:29

        In reference to engineering freedom, it’s worth remembering that such freedom comes at the cost of equilibrium. The freer the formula, the greater the likelihood that one team will dominate – and Red Bull this year have nothing on the late ’80s and early ’90s (or Ferrari in the 2000s at times).

        How much value is placed on that balance is open for debate, but the last thing I want to see is one team dominating with a clear number one driver. Formula 1 is not a single-chassis formula, but at the same time, from a marketing point of view, it must be fiercely competitive formula at the front.

        • Mike (@mike) said on 19th November 2011, 2:23

          Exactly. It’s very easy to forget that when focusing on the restrictions placed on engineers.

        • drmouse (@drmouse) said on 21st November 2011, 13:03

          In reference to engineering freedom, it’s worth remembering that such freedom comes at the cost of equilibrium. The freer the formula, the greater the likelihood that one team will dominate – and Red Bull this year have nothing on the late ’80s and early ’90s (or Ferrari in the 2000s at times).

          And what is wrong with one team dominating? If they have managed to make a huge leap (like Brawn, for a recent example) they reap the rewards. All teams operate on a level playing field (except budgets, although these can be restricted).

          I completely agree that, at the moment, the idea is to stop any one team excelling, keep them all close to average. This keeps the performance of the cars closer, and gives good action on race day, but it limits my enjoyment of F1, as I’m sure it does many others. I’m probably in the minority, but I follow the technical developments of F1 as much as the racing, and this side has been steadily removed from the sport over the last decade or so.

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 19th November 2011, 0:30

        I don’t see anything in the comment that suggests this is a reference to safety.

        Indeed; I read it as meaning in 2011, any idiot can succeed in Formula 1 – there are no drivers who push the car beyond its limits using nothing more than their willpower.

  4. Trix (@) said on 19th November 2011, 0:12

    Ah well, welcome to the kinder, gentler world where everyone is OK, at the cost of the exemplary.

    You should write this on a postcard and send it to Bruno Senna. I’m sure his family will appreciate your eloquent thougts.

    • MylesW (@mpw1985) said on 19th November 2011, 4:01

      I’m pretty sure he meant that to mean “every car is okay and relatively competitive”, and not inferring anything about the safety of the sport. The whole comment was referring to the lack of freedom engineers experience nowadays, which produces a much closer pack and gives less chance for “exemplary” cars to be created. I’m not quite sure how you interpreted it that way; it seemed pretty clear to me that he was referring to the relative level of competition.

    • Senna’s death came after active suspension, traction control, 4 wheel steer and all that was banned at the end of 1993. I would argue the FIA made the cars more dangerous at the start of ’94 because the cars were going comparable speeds without the driver aids to help them. Senna’s and Ratzenberger’s tragic deaths were a wake up call to a sport that had become complacent about the dangers of F1.

  5. Noura said on 19th November 2011, 0:24

    It seems that Williams is gonna announce the 2nd driver in 7 days from now. Good news :)

    http://www.f1zone.net/news/williams-driver-lineup-to-be-decided-within-a-week/10401/

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 19th November 2011, 0:28

      Somehow, I don’t think we’re going to see Raikkonen driving a Williams next year. His signing has been assumed to be a near-certain thing for the past few weeks, but suddenly Valtteri Bottas’ star has risen. The Raikkonen camp has gone quiet, and everyone is singing praise for Bottas.

      • Estesark (@estesark) said on 19th November 2011, 9:53

        A Finn one way or the other, then. Sounds good to me – although with my neutral hat on, I think Adrian Sutil might be the best all-round choice for Williams.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 19th November 2011, 12:05

          If Maldonado is dropped because of the PDVSA investigation, then I could maybe see a Sutil-Bottas line-up. But only if Williams still got money from the Qataris, and hiring Raikkonen seems to be a condition of that.

          At the same time, there were reports that Raikkonen wants to buy into the team with his managers, the Robertsons. Although these reports have been categorically denied by investor Toto Wolff, Raikkonen used to run a Formula 3 team with the Robertsons known as Raikkonen Robertson Racing (now known as Double R after the Robertsons sold their stake in the team). They’ve found a couple of promising drivers in Felipe Nasr, Carlos Huertas and Marcus Ericsson. Raikkonen might want to take the Mika Hakkinen approach and become a driver manager, especially for Valtteri Bottas. It’s not the same as driving for the team, but it might hold the same kind of appeal to the Qataris. Especially for when Sir Frank retires; Raikkonen and the Robertsons could possibly run the team.

      • damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 19th November 2011, 11:50

        Or Rubens… :)

      • I think Bottas is too young yet.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 19th November 2011, 12:43

      I think its pretty good for Williams to be in the news for speculation who wants to drive with them (especially if it includes a former WDC like Kimi) and will happily let the speculation continue for a while to keep in the positive news.

      I think if they sign Kimi, actually giving him stock options or equity might be just the motivation he needs. Signing Rubens he would have the experience, Sutil would bring solidness, a bit of money and experience and Bottas might give them a bit of fresh spirit but a pretty unexperienced line-up. Although Sauber did fine with theirs.

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 19th November 2011, 12:54

        I think its pretty good for Williams to be in the news for speculation who wants to drive with them (especially if it includes a former WDC like Kimi) and will happily let the speculation continue for a while to keep in the positive news.

        If they sign Raikkonen for 2012, their share price will rise. The big problem is that if they don’t sign him, the share price is going to nosedive. Especially since so many people are expecting it.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 19th November 2011, 13:09

          Ha, sounds like another great reason to give him equity!
          Sell when its a bit up from the low of recent times, and leave it to Kimi to make them not sink again :-)

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 19th November 2011, 13:13

            But Raikkonen apparently wants to use Williams as an ‘audition’ – to race with them for a year, then step up to another team (Italy’s Autosprint reports Mercedes). His departure will coincide with another plunge in the share price. The only hope is to radically improve Williams’ fortunes over the course of one year, so that when he does leave, the impact of the blow will be lessened.

  6. George (@george) said on 19th November 2011, 0:35

    Eric Boullier: “The situation with Robert is easy. We have a moral obligation to make sure we give him a chance.

    I dont think they do have an obligation? If he’d injured himself while driving their car yes, but he did it on his own time. I think it’s more likely they want to hold onto him just in case he’s still on top of his game, so no one else can sign him (it’s not like anyone of his calibre would choose to go to Renault as they are right now).

  7. celeste (@celeste) said on 19th November 2011, 0:38

    Abu Dhabi Grand Prix race video edit

    Highlights from last week’s race.

    Funny enough, Vettel is broadcasted more than when he wins a race :

    And the man with Vettel at the begging of the video is Piero Lardi Ferrari Vice-President …

  8. damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 19th November 2011, 1:19

    I’m going to change the subject to something a bit more positive; the new race edit is great! I’m convinced Sébastien Buemi was actually crying now. He really has been very unlucky all year and he deserves a strong finish. I can’t help but feel he’s fearing for his future and he feels he needs a few good results to prove himself. But I think he already has proven to be better than his team-mate and it’s just bad luck that’s stopping him from surging ahead of Jaime in the Championship.

    Also, rewatching that move Webber eventually made on Button to get past, it was very harsh, wasn’t it? I’m not criticising Mark, because really, that corner is poorly designed and Mark had to cut across him in order to make the corner and still be able to get the car turned in for the right that immediately follows it and feeds onto the straight.

    But I think several people were a bit harsh on the quality of the Grand Prix. As that edit shows, there was a huge amount of action.

  9. sato113 (@sato113) said on 19th November 2011, 1:21

    if you find that the race edit link isn’t working, here it is on youtube-
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvSKwj3hmU

  10. DVC (@dvc) said on 19th November 2011, 1:56

    +1 to what Peter Sauber said. I’m surprised it hasn’t attracted more attention in the comments.

    • MylesW (@mpw1985) said on 19th November 2011, 4:06

      The academy is shockingly predictable sometimes. I have trouble taking them seriously anymore. Too much politics, too little art.

      • celeste (@celeste) said on 19th November 2011, 8:39

        Maybe is because of this:

        For example, Grizzly Man, a documentary strong enough to appear on many critics’ top 10 lists[2] was not nominated, and did not even make the Academy’s internally distributed top 15 list. Grizzly Man’s exclusion was later revealed to be the result of an Academy rule disqualifying documentary films that are constructed entirely out of archive footage. However, Grizzly Man included new interviews and other footage shot exclusively for the film.

  11. xtophe (@xtophe) said on 19th November 2011, 10:43

    Good to see Hamilton smiling in the race-edit.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.