Decision on ’20th race’ for 2013 expected soon

F1 Fanatic round-up

Rubens Barrichello, Williams, Istanbul, 2011In the round-up: The 2013 F1 calendar should be finalised soon.

Links

Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Istanbul still in running for F1 race this season (AutoWeek)

“A decision is expected in the next week regarding adding a 20th race – or adding none at all.”

‘Mark knows what we expect': Red Bull advisor suggests Webber will play supporting role to Sebastian Vettel in 2013 (The Independent)

Helmut Marko: “For four years, Vettel and Webber have driven together in our team. Sebastian was runner-up once and champion three times. The statistic speaks for itself. There is no reason to think the balance of power will change.”

Red Bull says late upgrade hurt Webber (Autosport)

Christian Horner: “Certainly Sebastian [Vettel] was able to get more out of the upgrade than Mark was. It did seem to suit his requirements whereas Mark never seemed quite as comfortable. But he still had Korea pole, a front row in Abu Dhabi, and out-qualified Seb in Brazil.”

Ferrari, a brain storming to help Alonso with his rivals (La Gazzetta dello Sport)

Head of the operations research department Neil Martin: “Until a few years ago – explained Martin – Everything was very straightforward. Everyone looked after their own car and there was only one strategy: to go as fast as possible. That is no longer the case. Nowadays it is necessary to take into consideration a host of parameters, starting with tyre wear and the weather conditions, right up to the time that is lost during a pit-stop”.

How to make an F1 car, Part 1: the conceptual design stage (BBC)

“Since long before the final race of last year in Brazil, all the teams have been hard at work on the car they will be campaigning with in 2013. That work, already deeply concentrated, takes on a new level of intensity once one season has been dealt with.”

Why Surtees is unlikely to be knighted (Motorsport Musings)

“A knighthood would… have to be awarded to Surtees for his current activities and not his successes from 50 years ago, for which he received an MBE in 1959 and OBE in 2008 for services to charity and motorsport.”

Vote for the Building of the Year 2012 (American Architects)

The observation tower at the Circuit of the Americas (the COTA Grand Plaza) has been nominated as Building of the Year 2012.

Vodafone McLaren Mercedes on Google+

“We?re hosting our hangout to introduce Sergio [Perez] to the fans on Wednesday January 9th.”

Tweets

Comment of the day

Marcus (@jadedwriter) responds to Ron Dennis’s latest view on Lewis Hamilton’s departure:

Every time I read an interview from Ron Dennis regarding Lewis Hamilton’s move I get the feeling that he just finished eating a bowl full of sour grapes.
Marcus (@jadedwriter)

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

F1 has lost one team this year in the form of HRT. The last team to pull out was Toyota at the end of 2009, despite having already produced a car for the next season. Two years ago today we got a look at it for the first time:

Image ?? Williams/LAT

Advert | Go Ad-free

84 comments on Decision on ’20th race’ for 2013 expected soon

  1. OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 5th January 2013, 0:08

    Brainstorming about Ferrari and thhe way to get the championship? I don’t think it’s a coincidence that while in other teams (Red Bull, McLaren) the approach is more open for both drivers, Ferrari is centered in “one rooster” and gets nothing anyway. Imagine Vettel making room for Webber in Brazil 2010, that would have resulted in Alonso becoming champion. If Massa was (is) not good enough to challenge for victories (and in that way stealing points from other drivers when necessary) so why is he still in the team? They need a rookie who can be “trained” by Alonso… probably Fernando is still scared of the time when a rookie matched his points

    • Slr (@slr) said on 5th January 2013, 0:29

      I don’t think it’s a coincidence that while in other teams (Red Bull, McLaren) the approach is more open for both drivers, Ferrari is centered in “one rooster” and gets nothing anyway.

      There’s no magic formula for winning the world championship. All it needed was one more thing to go Alonso’s way last year and he would have been champion, and you wouldn’t be saying that. Ferrari’s approach of favouring their number one driver worked extremely well in the past with Michael Schumacher, and they have only just missed out with Alonso twice. I don’t see how there approach for winning the championship is bad.

      Imagine Vettel making room for Webber in Brazil 2010, that would have resulted in Alonso becoming champion.

      Your example of Red Bull not using team orders at Brazil 2010 isn’t a great one as both drivers still had a very realistic chance of winning the championship, whereas Massa hasn’t come anywhere near winning the drivers’ title since Alonso became his team mate. Red Bull had no problem favouring Vettel at Silverstone in 2010 and 2011.

      • OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 5th January 2013, 0:42

        Your example of Red Bull not using team orders at Brazil 2010 isn’t a great one as both drivers still had a very realistic chance of winning the championship, whereas Massa hasn’t come anywhere near winning the drivers’ title since Alonso became his team mate.

        It is (in my opinion) a good example because that’s what I’m saying: Massa was never on real chances to win the championship the last 3 or 4 years, they need a driver (again, in my opinion) who matches the rivals but still leaves some comfort zone for Alonso to battle and grab the championship

    • Atticus (@atticus-2) said on 5th January 2013, 11:14

      I agree with your last line even as an Alonso fan. And it is certainly a weakness of him.

      But I still think he is the best, most complete driver of the current crop.

  2. ScuderiaVincero (@scuderiavincero) said on 5th January 2013, 0:22

    Thing is Marko, not since 2010 has Mark actually played any sort of leadership role. From lights out in 2011 (for some it was the 2010 British GP), it was clear to me which basket Red Bull was putting their eggs in.

    Be honest about that! No use telling me your drivers are equal when one is (near) constantly on the up. Ferrari had this with the Schumacher-Barrichello combo (didn’t like it that much either) but at least they were honest about it.

    • OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 5th January 2013, 0:30

      Honest in Austria twice

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 5th January 2013, 4:13

      Be honest about that!

      Sometimes, I think Red Bull are very conscious of the way they are received by fans, and try a little too hard to change things. For instance, when they entered the sport, they were the party team; for instance, in Monaco the Red Bull post-race party was the place to be.

      But they’ve gradually shed that image, and some of the decisions they have taken – like blaming Webber for the crash in Turkey and swapping the front wings at Silverstone – have made them unpopular. Those incidents might have happened two years ago, but they went a long way towards setting up a reputation for them among fans. And reputation is like tar; it sticks to everything, and it’s difficult to get off. There are other, little things that have contributed, too. People got fed up with Vettel’s finger-pointing pretty quickly in 2011, and it was never fun when we had a tight and tense qualifying session, only for him to emerge at the last minute and cruise around half a second faster than everyone else.

      All in all, I think that when Red Bull leaves the sport, history will remember them as being one of the most polarising teams in Formula 1. And I think that they are conscious of this, and so are taking pains to try and turn that reputation around. I don’t think that they are overly-concerned with their reputation, but in this day and age of public relations, they’d probably like a bit more positive publicity, so they try and make an effort. The only problem is that it’s probably the one thing they’re not very good at. Helmut Marko might say that their drivers are equal, but I bet most people still remember him getting stuck into Jaime Alguersuari for momentarily impeding Vettel during a Friday free practice session in the race after Vettel had secured his second title.

      • ScuderiaVincero (@scuderiavincero) said on 5th January 2013, 10:32

        People got fed up with Vettel’s finger-pointing pretty quickly in 2011, and it was never fun when we had a tight and tense qualifying session, only for him to emerge at the last minute and cruise around half a second faster than everyone else.

        It was definitely typical of the 2011 season, so much so I bet on that with my friends during every quali session. *guilty to the max*

        And yeah, there’s realitively little room on the fence with Red Bull. Love them or hate them, they have achieved their success. With the last point you made, it’s quite clear Marko isn’t the best man to go to for public relations (He’s the one guy in Formula 1 I can wholeheartedly despise with a clear conscience).

      • dragoll (@dragoll) said on 5th January 2013, 11:54

        But they’ve gradually shed that image, and some of the decisions they have taken – like blaming Webber for the crash in Turkey and swapping the front wings at Silverstone – have made them unpopular. Those incidents might have happened two years ago, but they went a long way towards setting up a reputation for them among fans. And reputation is like tar; it sticks to everything, and it’s difficult to get off.

        @prisoner-monkeys Name a team on the grid that has won a constructors title that hasn’t had similar favourtism towards one driver or the other?

        McLaren had massive issues with Prost and Senna, which is well documented. Ferrari, well, no arguments need to be put forward for, as the recent history speaks for itself.

        Williams always had a #1 and #2 in the 90’s, the mysterious pit stops that I remember Damon Hill had to make that let his teammate Nigel Mansell through to win the race, or Jacques Villeneuve being pitted for “inspection” that allowed his team leader Damon Hill through to win in Melbourne on JV’s debut.

        Nelson Piquet Jr was asked to crash in Singapore for the benefit of the #1 Alonso, whom had the upper hand in the Renault (now known as Lotus Renault)

        Fans forget such incidents, because its expected from teams to do everything they can to win championships. And well, if fans jumped off every team that made a tough call, then everyone would be supporting HRT, oh they’re not around anymore? Hrmm…. might be something in that logic of mine then ;)

        • This.

        • infy (@infy) said on 5th January 2013, 18:45

          @dragoll its not that they dont have favoritism, its just that they TELL us they dont and then their ACTIONS betray them/us.

          • dragoll (@dragoll) said on 5th January 2013, 23:28

            @infy Williams never declared a #1 driver to the public and then pulled JV in for a random pitstop.

            Ferrari didn’t have a clear #1 when Schumi first joined them with Irvine in 1996, and then it only became clear that Schumi was number 1 after time.

            McLaren had major issues with Alonso vs Hamilton as Alonso thought he was #1 and the actions of the team suggested that he wasn’t.

            No team is squeaky clean with driver lineups, they all set out to do the right thing, but then slowly change their minds.

          • infy (@infy) said on 5th January 2013, 23:48

            @dragoll Yes I know the history of F1 well enough. Thing is RBR dont change their mind, they knowingly mislead fans right from the very start of each season for the sake of PR.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 5th January 2013, 22:54

          Name a team on the grid that has won a constructors title that hasn’t had similar favourtism towards one driver or the other?

          Name a team on the grid that blames one of their drivers for causing a collision that was the other driver’s fault.

      • Nick.UK (@) said on 5th January 2013, 19:35

        I like your comment @prisoner-monkeys it kind of summises everything about the atmospheric changes at the team in the last 4 years. Personally I think the biggest thing Red Bull could do to improve their image and reputation among fans of the team (and haters), is to tell Mr Marco to either 100% keep quiet in the media or send him packing to Torro Rosso, where surely he is needed more, you know, given that he is the YOUNG driver programme advisor!

    • @scuderiavincero – the main difference between Red Bull and Ferrari though is that Ferrari employ a clear no.1 with the other designated as the support driver from the off. Red Bull have two very competitive drivers in Vettel and Webber and both were presented with close to equal opportunities at the off: whoever comes out on top gets the luxury of having development tailored to his taste (as of course there would be extreme difficulty in developing down two different roads). It just so happens Vettel has cemented his no.1 status in the team in their four years partnership, so he gets the benefit of extra rear downforce etc.

      I feel Red Bull are very honest about their driver policy: they let them fight it out to see who comes out on top. We’ve since this time and again when Webber is allowed to win races, unlike Massa (if he happens to be faster than Alonso he is given a clear message to “let Alonso through” etc.). I highly doubt Webber would take a gearbox penalty (or indeed Red Bull would deliberately break Webber’s gearbox) to aid Vettel.

      • US_Peter (@us_peter) said on 5th January 2013, 18:56

        I agree. Well said.

      • Nick.UK (@) said on 5th January 2013, 19:37

        I wouldn’t put it passed them! They are happy to take parts off one car altogether and put it on another after all!

      • ScuderiaVincero (@scuderiavincero) said on 6th January 2013, 2:34

        Red Bull have two very competitive drivers in Vettel and Webber and both were presented with close to equal opportunities at the off

        @vettel1 That’s why I say one is near constantly on the up, rather than 100%. That said, I disagree on the development being tailored to “whoever comes out on top”, since in my eyes, Vettel does seem to adapt that much better to most upgrades. If Mark was as competitive as you make him out to be, he’d adapt just as well.

        In my eyes, there is a big difference in the two examples you state about driver policy. Mark winning multiple Grands Prix last year was at a point when both had a chance of winning the title. Interestingly, in the 2011 British GP, Mark was challenging Vettel, who had an enourmous points lead, for second place. Yet he was told to “maintain the gap.” That’s a big exception to the “fighting it out” policy you state there.

        Now I would certainly defend the team orders used on Massa in 2012, since it coincided with two things:

        1) Alonso being in the championship hunt
        2) Red Bull having a comfortably superior car to the Ferrari

        At that point, Alonso needed all the points he could get. So it was a no brainer for me. Webber would certainly never take a gearbox penalty, nor move over, for Seb, that I agree. But fitting his front wing to Vettel’s car in 2010, ouch. If that isn’t giving an advantage to one driver, I don’t know what is.

        • But fitting his front wing to Vettel’s car in 2010, ouch

          Personally I think it says a lot that one of the few credible examples of favouring one driver comes from 2010 and is indeed one of a few. I agree that it must have hurt but he went on to win the race, so that says a lot for me about the “letting their drivers race” policy (it was indeed Webber who forced Vettel wide at the start).

          in the 2011 British GP, Mark was challenging Vettel, who had an enormous points lead, for second place. Yet he was told to “maintain the gap”

          I could interpret that two ways: 1) Horner was trying to avoid a repeat of Turkey, especially since it was in the dying laps.
          2) As you have said below, the championship position Vettel was in compared to Webber meant he was more in need of the points (although personally I find that unlikely as to why he was told to maintain the gap).

          He ignored their orders anyway and repeatedly tried to pass Vettel, often getting very close to his car. So from a team leader standpoint, one does not wish to lose 33 points from an unnecessary collision in the dying laps of a race. I don’t fully agree with this either as I believe both drivers were clever enough to give each other room but from a team standpoint the decision made perfect sense to me, especially given Mark was a distant challenger for the title and Ferrari appeared quicker with the (short-lived) ban on EBD’s.

          You argue also that Webber was allowed to win races as both drivers had a chance of winning the title; isn’t that essentially backing up my point? Both drivers are presented with equal opportunities and allowed to fight it out. If Webber had been more competitive in 2011 the same would have happened. Usually though upgrades towards the end of the season always tend to favour Vettel, who can extract more from them, and he goes on to win the title and beat Webber (in 2010 just, in 2011/12 convincingly).

          The Ferrari driver policy differs immensely from Red Bull’s in that respect: relative to Alonso, Massa is uncompetitive (much like Barrichello in the Schumacher days) and is employed purposefully as a support driver to Alonso. I personally don’t like such policies but I respect that is Ferrari’s method – the team is structured around a definite lead driver – which means Massa has to be prepared to pull over for Alonso or more distastefully for the viewers take a gearbox penalty on his behalf. Sure, Alonso was chasing a championship against a faster Red Bull with an on-form Vettel but surely you can’t admit to liking seeing a driver incur an intentional penalty?

          • ScuderiaVincero (@scuderiavincero) said on 7th January 2013, 2:26

            .At Silverstone 2011, even if there had been a repeat of Turkey 2010, I doubt it would’ve made much of a difference. Had that happened, Vettel would have still been arond 50-60 points clear (feeling too tired to do any calculations, sorry). So I’ll just argue for the non-necessity of it.

            This is one of the exceptions to the rule, and yes, generally, I do see Red Bull letting their drivers race each other. But favoring drivers extends beyond the track, as a lot can be gained on another front. Upgrades. They have a tendency to favor Vettel, as we’ve both noticed. Indeed, he can extract more from them than Webber. But I’ve yet to see the reverse happening. Vettel’s problems with one of the early upgrades last year caused a bit of a points gap to Webber, i.e. Webber came out on top then. Only for a moment though, as further upgrades put the balance of power back into Vettel’s hands.

            Sure, Alonso was chasing a championship against a faster Red Bull with an on-form Vettel but surely you can’t admit to liking seeing a driver incur an intentional penalty?

            Hahah, indeed I liked Massa’s intentional gearbox penalty, as much as I liked seeing Toro Rosso drivers move over for Vettel in Interlagos. Barely But at both points for each other, the championship was on the line. So I thought to myself, harsh. Harsh, but necessary.

          • ScuderiaVincero (@scuderiavincero) said on 7th January 2013, 2:28

            Okaaay, I meant to highlight the words “Upgrades” and “Barely.” My mistake, my mistake!

  3. How interesting it’d be to see Adrian’s notebook…

    • celeste (@celeste) said on 5th January 2013, 4:23

      And being able to understand it ;)

    • @celeste – haha! That could be tricky; I bet you it would just look like random scribbles to you and me!

    • infy (@infy) said on 5th January 2013, 18:46

      There’s probably nothing in there. Seems more like a prop in an act.

      • @infy – No I think it is probably! Newey’s one of the few designer’s left who still uses a drawing board and so it stands to reason his notepad’s probably full of scribbles ;) I remember in Brazil where one of the mechanics took a photo of Vettel’s damage in the pit stop so Adrian could analyse the damage, which serves to prove he is a very hands-on designer.

        • infy (@infy) said on 5th January 2013, 23:45

          I’m not sure how you make a connection between looking at a picture of your cars damage to the notepad. Every top team would have done the exact same thing regarding the picture if they were in that position. Its nothing special…

          • @infy – It’s an indication that Adrian relies heavily on visualisation to design his cars, so I imagine his notebook to be full of sketches and, well, notes! What I’m saying is he is one of the few designers left that almost solely relies on shall we say “traditional” methods.

          • infy (@infy) said on 6th January 2013, 0:49

            Ok I get it now. I still dont see why we would praise him for doing something (like taking a picture of the damage and looking at it) that is completely normal and done by all teams.

          • @infy – I’m not arguing that, I had just personally never seen it before (not that I can recall anyway) so I thought it was quite clever seeing him visualising how the car would be affected. It was more of an example than anything else!

  4. I may be mistaken, but weren’t HRT supposed to be using the TF110? I seem to remember Kolles saying that the F111 was based on what he could sketch from it or something similar?

    • JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III said on 5th January 2013, 3:57

      Suddenly it all falls into place I understand what happened at hrt now. I can even imagine the look of glee on colin’s face as he came into the hrt offices and announced he had managed to steal some industrial secrets.

  5. mantresx (@mantresx) said on 5th January 2013, 1:34

    I feel 2013 will be Mark’s last year at Red Bull, he’s only hope is that neither Ricciardo or Vergne impress Marko, however both of them have at least proved they’re willing to move aside for Sebastian so who knows?? :)

    • celeste (@celeste) said on 5th January 2013, 4:08

      @mantresx who knowa, but I do think that maybe Webber´s pride didn´t help his chances in Brasil… And if you believe Sport Bild, either the Toro Rosso kids or Hulkenberg could be consider to the seat:

      Now, Austrian Marko has made clear Red Bull was not happy with Webber’s driving at the 2012 Interlagos finale, when teammate Sebastian Vettel was fighting for the title against Ferrari’s Fernando Alonso.

      Indeed, Flavio Briatore – still involved with the management of Webber’s career – said after Brazil: “The only one who helped Ferrari was Webber.”

      Marko confirms: “Mark was not optimally cooperative in Brazil.”

      • US_Peter (@us_peter) said on 5th January 2013, 19:06

        Which is why I can’t see Webber ever ending up at Ferrari despite the fact that we know he was strongly being courted by the team last year, and could well again be courted by them this year if he performs. As much truth as there is to the popular F1 adage that every racer wants to drive for Ferrari at some point in his career, I can’t imagine a driver whose personality and moral compass are more diametrically opposed to that of the Scuderia than Webber’s. That said it would be fascinating to see what did happen if he went to the team. Would he sit back and ride out the end of his career as a number two, or would he tell them where they could stick their gearbox penalty when the situation arose?

  6. I don’t see why the competitive order at Red Bull would be reversed. Vettel has proven over the 4 years of their partnership that he is the man to beat and is for sure the jewel in the crown for the Red Bull young driver’s programme (for the time being anyway, I have high hopes for Felix Da Costa). He has earned his no.1 status at Red Bull and is on fairly ominous form having just won his third straight title. I don’t however expect Mark to “play the support role”: he is out there to race for himself and is allowed to do so.

    • celeste (@celeste) said on 5th January 2013, 3:59

      I do agree, and I think that Marko´s words are been taking out context, he is not saying that Webber will be a second driver, just that he doesn´t believe that he will beat Vettel… and being honest how many in here believe that Webber will do so?

      • OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 5th January 2013, 4:04

        +1, as I commented before, when Webber even attempted to overtake Vettel in Brazil, he showed he is eager to show how good he is, no matter if his teammate’s championship is on stake. After some laps he surrendered, but his “I-don’t-care” reactions have given him respect, me included.

        • @omarr-pepper – his attitude has given some heart-stopping moments in the past (such as when he very nearly ran into the back of Vettel in Brazil at the safety car re-start) but I admire him for it also: it makes him appear less submissive. Seeing Massa pulling out of Alonso’s way without complaint is a very sorry sight in my mind, particularly given he was fighting for the World Championship a mere 5 years ago…

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 5th January 2013, 5:01

      @vettel1

      (for the time being anyway, I have high hopes for Felix Da Costa)

      Helmut Marko apparently wants Nico Hulkenberg to replace Mark Webber. This comes second-hand from Bild, a tabloid – so its reliability is questionable at best – but if it’s true, it causes a problem for da Costa. Red Bull won’t let go of Vettel, but if they take Hulkenberg, then they’ll probably want to keep him for a few years. I doubt da Costa will be happy cruising around in a Toro Rosso until an opening becomes available at Red Bull.

      Perhaps Ferrari should chase him as a potential replacement for Massa in 2014. Yes, he’d be making his debut with Ferrari, and while there was once a time when Ferrari had the luxury of letting a driver race for a few seasons with other teams, that time has passed. Ten years ago, they would have been happy to let the Hamiltons and Vettels of the grid cut their teeth with smaller teams, but in this day and age of driver development programmes, McLaren and Vettel got in first and have won four of the last five World Championships (and Ferrari didn’t win the one left over).

      Besides, the case of Sergio Perez going to McLaren this year proves that teams cannot control the careers of young drivers absolutely. Not only did McLaren get Perez out of the Ferrari Driver Academy, they did it so quickly and with such ease that they announced they had signed him before Mercedes announced that they had taken Hamilton (who had apparently only signed a contract a few days before).

      So if I were Ferrari, I’d be making moves to snap up da Costa the minute Red Bull’s supposed interest in Hulkenberg becomes genuine interest.

      • Hotbottoms (@hotbottoms) said on 5th January 2013, 11:26

        @prisoner-monkeys – I agree that Ferrari is no longer in a position in which they can (or should) wait for young drivers to gather experience.

        But I also think that Ferrari weren’t trully interested in Perez – and it was probably a right call. McLaren paniced after finding about Hamilton leaving and chose an average driver, who had his best race of the season at the time.

        Anyway in my opinion Ferrari keeping Massa for 2013 suggests that they already have some sort of agreement with someone for 2014.

      • @prisoner-monkeys – very interesting indeed, thank you for the link. That would be a strange move as far as I’m concerned; it would strike me as going against the development programme they have invested so heavily in. I expect Hulkenberg has links to Ferrari as I see no other reason why he would’ve moved to Sauber so for Red Bull to then steal him would be a double kick in the teeth for Ferrari having just lost Perez to McLaren!

        I concur with your last statement: if Red Bull show real interest in Hulkenberg then Felix Da Costa is a very viable alternative, albeit a rather less experienced one (of course if Hulkeneberg were to move next year Da Costa would still be a rookie) and given Ferrari’s past reluctancy to sign inexperienced drivers it’s a long-shot but Ferrari may just have to adapt to the times.

        • Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989) said on 5th January 2013, 14:17

          so for Red Bull to then steal him would be a double kick in the teeth for Ferrari having just lost Perez to McLaren!

          Some people always tend to explain facts as they want to
          I don’t know how much time we heard this year Luca (Di Montezemolo+Baldisserri) saying that Perez was inexperience for Ferrari

          • @tifoso1989 – of course, we can only speculate over whether Ferrari were genuinely considering Perez as a replacement for Massa but I’d say it is a reasoned assumption, given he was part of Ferrari’s driver development programme and performing well. We can also make a reasonable assumption that Ferrari are considering employing Hulkenberg, as otherwise a move from Force India to Sauber seems to be a sideways move. So if Ferrari were to lose Hulkenberg, a promising young driver I think you’ll agree, to their main rivals Red Bull you could imagine that’d be, to quote my earlier phrase, “a kick in the teeth”.

            Of course though their is no conformation that Red Bull are showing genuine interest in Hulkenberg as a possible replacement for Webber for the time being so I’ll refrain from jumping to conclusions until it becomes “genuine interest”.

          • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 5th January 2013, 23:16

            @tifoso1989

            I don’t know how much time we heard this year Luca (Di Montezemolo+Baldisserri) saying that Perez was inexperience for Ferrari

            Of course, they kept saying it – but how much of that was Perez’s inexperience, and how much of that was the team stubbornly clinging to the idea that they are Ferrari and they don’t take rookie or sophomore drivers?

            Ten or fifteen years ago, drivers like Lewis Hamilton would have entered Formula 1 with a team like Arrows or Minardi. They would have impressed early on, been earmarked for a Ferrari drive, and then given three or four years to mature, at which point they would join Ferrari. It was a system that worked then, but it doesn’t work now. Now we’ve got teams identifying talented drivers from a young age, and working with them, supporting their careers to get them through the feeder series so that they stand the best chance of getting into Formula 1. Their career paths are clearly mapped out for them. And when they finally do join Formula 1, their close relationship with the team makes joining that team a natural fit.

            This is a problem for Ferrari, because they have completely missed the boat. They’re still working under the idea that they are Ferrari, and that every driver wants to race for them, and so they have the luxury of waiting and seeing who achieves what. But it’s now faulty logic, because other teams are getting to the talented drivers first and winning championships. Driving for Ferrari still has that exalted status, but now it’s just one more item on a checklist. Ferrari aren’t getting these talented drivers until they’ve already achieved everything else with other teams, and it’s diminishing the Ferrari name and image.

  7. artificial racer said on 5th January 2013, 3:21

    Marko’s kind of an ass. Even though most people would put the odds on Sebastian at this point, Marko puts it in insulting terms leaving no acknowledgement that Mark has been very close to Sebastian many times, beating him sometimes, running him to the last race of the championship.

    What is the purpose of making this kind of comment about one of your team’s drivers?

    I’m not sure what exactly this guy gets paid for to be honest.

    • David-A (@david-a) said on 5th January 2013, 14:38

      Running him to the last race of the championship.

      I’m no fan of Marko either, but I will still point out to you that this was because of less unreliability on his side of the garage. Otherwise it is only once in 4 attempts that MW was even close (2009).

    • Carlito's way said on 6th January 2013, 13:12

      Yes marko is most unpleasant on his remarks. But if one can see his past his perhaps exaggerated directness, one would realise that he’s simply stating the obvious. Mark isn’t on the same level as seb and never will be. Yes he might equal or best seb on the odd occasion, but that’s about it. And everyone knows that.

  8. wsrgo said on 5th January 2013, 4:51

    Something’s wrong with the link to the 20 races story. It keeps redirecting to ‘Best Street Circuits’ article on F1Fanatic instead of Autoweek.

  9. Anonymouse said on 5th January 2013, 5:05

    For Mark Webber to win the championship, the F1 calendar has to alternate between Monaco and Silverstone for all 20 rounds

  10. manik56 (@manik56) said on 5th January 2013, 6:40

    F1 is so un-American at times. I could never imagine Roger Penske saying, “Will Power has been faster than Helio the past few years so I expect Helio to play a “supporting role.” Or how about Rick Hendrick: “Jimmie Johnson has been kicking Jeff Gordon’s rear for the last decade, no way Jeff will try to beat Jimmie this year. Does Mark Webber have any pride? Kick Seb’s tail in ’13!

    • Fisha695 (@fisha695) said on 5th January 2013, 8:56

      But on the other hand (and speaking as somebody who has seen it first hand) you can go to any short-track around the country and find drivers who have a second car/driver for the sole reason of taking out and/or slowing up the competition to make sure driver #1 wins.

      You do see Team Orders somewhat on the NASCAR side of things with “Driver X move over & let Driver Y lead a lap to get the bonus point”. Or in the 90s (1993 & 1995) Rick Hendrick & Richard Childress both had entered an extra car in the season finale that was to ‘start & park’ so that Jeff Gordon & Dale Earnhardt wouldn’t finish last in those races to help them win the Championship. Even today with the smaller budget teams, let’s say Joe Nemechecks’ team he enters a 2nd car in certain races with the intent to start & park that 2nd car so he can use the money to try and race the full race distance in his car.

      So yeah it definitely happens in American motorsports it’s just that it’s done in different ways then it is in European motorsports.

    • davidnotcoulthard said on 5th January 2013, 8:58

      Marko didn’t say that, either – for which reason the quote says “hinted“.

  11. AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 5th January 2013, 7:40

    On the one hand, Helmut Marko is right: I don’t think many expect the balance of power at Red Bull to shift in 2013; on the other hand, the line “Mark knows what we expect of him”, is completely unnecessary. Webber is obviously not going to move over for Vettel next season either (at least not until only Vettel is capable of fighting for the title), so to suggest he will, or should, is an annoying comment by an annoying man.

    • ^Mo^ said on 5th January 2013, 9:03

      I don’t think he’s right at all. Sure, maybe Vettel will be outperforming Webber again next year, but maybe not. At the start of the season everybody starts at 0 points, and all of the drivers from top teams have equal opportunity. I can understand a clear no. 1 and no. 2 policy developing over the season, but not at the start of the season.

      I really think that they should keep Marko out of the press. He’s an adviser to the team, and head of the driver development program. I don’t think he should speak for the team, and I can’t believe they let him do that (and even if he doesn’t speak for the team, it’s still the public perception that he does). Every time that man says something in the press it’s controversial.

    • celeste (@celeste) said on 5th January 2013, 9:48

      @adrianmorse again I think Marko´s comments are beint taked out context, he perfectly ca´n be talking about he way they expect that Mark perform better than he did last year (6), since in 3rd in 2011 and 2010, so maybe he wanted to say “we know that Mark knows that he will delivered a better result”.

      Until we listen to the recording of the interview the sentence is to open to say anything for sure…

    • Girts (@girts) said on 5th January 2013, 16:05

      @AdrianMorse It’s true that there ain’t many, who expect Webber to beat Vettel in 2013. But Marko shouldn’t have said that. After all, he is not Vettel’s manager, his official position is RBR’s advisor so he should treat both drivers equally. But all he ever does is praise and defend Vettel, no matter what. That, in combination with his rumoured status as a very influential man in the organisation, makes some fans believe that Webber is treated unfairly by the team, which I don’t think is true. In my opinion, Marko’s statements only damage the public image of Vettel and Red Bull.

      • celeste (@celeste) said on 5th January 2013, 19:09

        @girts well I guess is a little better than Ferrair “brain storming” how to made Alonso win the championship ;)… I think they forgot they other driver… you know… the brazilian one…

        • Girts (@girts) said on 5th January 2013, 19:36

          @celeste I think it’s just what the Italian journalist put in the headline. The article is about how Ferrari’s strategies helps both drivers and Neil Martin, Ferrari’s main strategist, doesn’t say anything that suggests they care mainly about Alonso.

          The paradox is that Ferrari focus on their number one driver more than Red Bull focus on Vettel but Ferrari officials don’t say publicly that they expect Alonso to beat Massa in 2013, even if they and 99% of fans think so.

  12. Jayfreese (@) said on 5th January 2013, 9:05

    @keith autoweek link is wrong

  13. TotalF1Fan said on 5th January 2013, 10:09

    This might interest some of you who are into the technical side of F1, found this on youtube, looks like some has got access to telemetry of some f1 team & put out the actual lap data. Looks complex, would be nice if someone could decipher it for laymen like me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7P-Rkikv-U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_u59PEvcFs

    • andae23 (@andae23) said on 5th January 2013, 12:10

      Looks very nice indeed! I’ll try to explain the Monza one a little

      This sheet is mainly focussed at braking: temperature of the brakes and response to various input. The basic dials are all present on this sheet: the large number that changes colour when the driver shifts is the gear. Above and to the left of this number are the accelerometers – they measure the G-force. In the middle of the screen, the velocity in kph is depicted, as well as a normal rev-counter that normal cars also have.

      To the left of the longitudinal G-force measurer are the driver inputs: the right (green) figure is the throttle pedal, the left (red) figure is the brake pedal. The position of the brake pedal is also illustrated in the bottom left picture and it’s also projected on the circuit map (as you can see, the driver braked twice before the Parabolica – fail). A similar thing holds for the throttle position: that’s the green figure on the right.

      Now for the thing that the engineers are really interested in: the brake temperatures. The brake temperatures of all four wheels is measured and given a colour: FL is red, FR is green, RL is yellow and RR is blue. The four figures below the lateral G-force figure show the temperature of each of those brakes at that particular time. This values are then translated to the bottom right figure, that shows the brake temperature as a function of time – as you can see, the brake temperature can shoot from 200 to 1000 degree Celsius in mere seconds! The figure below the circuit map shows the amount of percent that the brake is a certain temperature during one lap. Finally the top right figure shows the brake temperature as a function of engine rpm.

      This is used mainly to monitor the brake temperature. If the temperature (either a spike or the average temp) is too high or too low, the engineers for instance remove or add ducttape to the brake air inlets or simply ask the driver to be a bit easier on its brakes.

    • Dizzy said on 5th January 2013, 18:41

      Fairly sure thats telemetry data got from one of the PC simulators, Probably rFactor.

      here is one of the other data displays from motec using an rfactor lap-
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeH-4jESFRs

  14. dragoll (@dragoll) said on 5th January 2013, 12:04

    Hey @keithcollantine, I think that Mark Webber article is bogus from the Independant

    “Mark knows what we expect of him,” Marko told German newspaper Sport Bild.

    I jumped on bild.de and searched for webber and mark and marko, and can’t find any reference to this quote, let alone the rest of quotes in the article.

    The only thing I can think of, is that they’ve either got a newspaper from Bild, or they’ve been speaking to the reporter at Bild before the article has been published.

    I read Bild a lot as they have a lot of F1 news there and generally they put everything noteworthy or not up there about F1 :)

  15. William (@william) said on 5th January 2013, 12:23

    For the vacant spot in the 2013 F1 Calendar it will be either Turkey or nothing

    • Master firelee (@master-firelee) said on 5th January 2013, 12:33

      I hope Turkey gets it.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 5th January 2013, 16:36

      Bernie is doing the big bluff again IMO. Surely TV contracts for 19 races will pay less than a contract for 20 races! I don’t know what the worldwide income to FOM is for TV rights per race but it seems logical to me that it would far surpass the $20-50 million that tracks have to pay to stage a race, if I am right then we have to ask; is Bernie going to take a loss to avoid setting a precedent (Monaco excepted) or will we see a circuit gifted the opportunity to actually make some money from staging a race?
      I would not be surprised if Paul Ricard (connected to Bernie) gets the nod, or maybe Red Bull have enough clout now for Austria, but I think RB have already played their hand for the Thai GP.
      One thing is for sure, the decision will be made to benefit FOM and Bernie, not to benefit the fans or the teams.

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.