Start, Sepang, 2013

Malaysian Grand Prix ‘has put us on the map’ – PM

F1 Fanatic round-upPosted on Author Keith Collantine

Start, Sepang, 2013In the round-up: The Malaysian prime minister gives a strong endorsement of his country’s race after the 15th running of it last weekend.


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

Ensuring future of Sepang F1 (Business Times)

Malaysian prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak: “Organising the Formula One has put Malaysia on the world map. It shows that Malaysia can organise an international event of this stature.”

Pic: no regrets over Caterham move (Autosport)

“I had a great year with Marussia but now I am very happy to be with Caterham for this year and the future. It’s not frustrating at all.”

Don’t be like my dad: Jacques Villenueve warns Vettel and Webber feuds between team-mates can be lethal (The Mirror)

“Ignoring is just plain wrong. The best ?é?ˇexample is my father and Didier Pironi. Just look at the problems that caused.”

Van der Garde to miss four FP1 sessions (GP Update)

“As it stands I will lose four Friday sessions. The first one I won’t be driving is Bahrain.”

Comment of the day

Among my favourite suggestions for yesterday’s Caption Competition were those from Dragoll, Steve Lockwood, Rambler and FunkyF1.

But I think many of you will already know what the wiunner is – this one from @Bpacman:

Mark Webber, Red Bull, Sepang, 2013

“Helmet Marko has accepted your friend request”

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Yuri Kofman and Shortstick1!

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

Damon Hill won a rain-soaked Brazilian Grand Prix on this day in 1996:

Images ?é?® Red Bull/Getty

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become an F1 Fanatic Supporter to hide this ad and others

81 comments on “Malaysian Grand Prix ‘has put us on the map’ – PM”

  1. Thoroughly deserved caption competition win @Bpacman – that’s one of the funniest in a while!

  2. I really cannot complain about the winner of the caption competition, just fantastic!

    Interesting to see VDG is being ousted for 4 FP1s. This will probably escalate into more than just 4. Out by Summer perhaps? With Bianchi absolutely flying they need a decent driver who can at least pose some sort of threat to the Frenchman. VDG deserves a chance, just like everybody, but that 10th place in the WCC has got Marussia written all over it bar some crazy GP or unless Caterham do something soon, and obviously VDG is adjusting not as quickly as what Bianchi is. Personally, I’d bring back Kovalainen, but not knowing Caterham’s financial situation I’m not sure whether this is even possible. It’s a shame for VDG to lose such precious time though. We saw how it affected Di Resta in 2011 and Senna in 2012, I’ve not seen a great deal of him but he seems like a pretty decent bloke and a solid driver, he’s not been too far off of Pic.

    1. @craig-o perhaps the one who bettered Bianchi in WSR, Robin Frijns. I don’t know what his sponsorship situation is like, but he looks to be a very decent driver.

      In an ideal world though, I’d have Felix Da Costa in that seat in a heartbeat: from last year, he looks absolutely incredible!

      1. @Vettel1 Felix Da Costa is insanely quick, no doubting that! However, I’ve not seen him actually do much in the way of racing. Frijns is a very good driver also. They’re all quite young though, so they still have plenty of time to get into F1, but would be unknown quantities. Success in lower formulae doesn’t always translate into being successful in F1. I’d stick with knowing what works.

        1. @vettl1, @craig-o

          I don’t think Red Bull would be keen on the idea of da Costa racing for Caterham. Sure, it gets him experience and it gets their Young Driver Programme some attention, but the problem is that there is a very real chance that he wouldn’t be able to keep up with Jules Bianchi. Da Costa is racing in Formula Renault 3.5, which doesn’t use the Pirelli tyres the way GP2 does. So while da Costa is off learning the tyres and the nuances of a Formula 1 car, Bianchi would be off banking solid results.

          1. Remember: they put Ricciardo in the HRT…

          2. @prisoner-monkeys – true, but he wouldn’t be there to grab headlines unlike Bianchi, he’d just be learning the trade for a step-up to Toro Rosso. It is highly unlikely he’ll end up there though.

            On the subject of Felix Da Costa though, I think he has a very real shot of landing a Toro Rosso seat before the season’s climax – especially if either Vergne or Ricciardo underperfoms!

      2. Robin Frinjs is also Dutch he may find sponsorship where VDG did, but realistically drivers like MA and Rossi are potential better funded for F1 I’m almost certain that next year both will land a seat in either Marussia or Caterham. It’s sad and it’s unfair, I just think it is impossible to determine who has F1 material by race #2, hopefully no sackings, all we hear in football lately.
        Great caption!

      3. Frijns has got no sponsors whatsoever, a big shame when he can’t get to F1 eventually.

        Personally I’d like to see Frijns in that sauber seat next year .

        it probably depends on Gutierrez’s performance, and/or Hulkenberg’s interest from the top teams.

    2. I don’t know much about VDG previous results, but I do know that Bianchi has a lot more experience than him, since he has been driving in practice and some running in Ferrari cars. I hope VDG gets at least time to get used to a F1 car.

      1. @celeste You’re a bit off there.
        Van der Garde has been testing Formula 1 cars from as far back as 2007. He’s tested with Spyker and Super Aguri, apart from the Renault prize test he got for winning WSR 3.5 in 2008.

    3. I wouldn’t go reading too much into it. Ma Qinghua is expected to take part in Friday practice in Shanghai, and since Bahrain will be the first round van der Garde misses, that means Pic will be sitting a few sessions out as well.

      Of course, van der Garde has said that he’s allowing himself a few races to acclimatise himself to Formula 1. Given that all the other rookie drivers have hit the ground running, he’s really done himself a disservice. He’s still my tip for the first mid-season replacement, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he is followed by Pic in short order. Caterham made a huge mistake in taking both of them.

    4. @craig-o Caterham say they are competing in the four flyaway races with a hybrid 2012-2013 version until they get to Europe, where they say they will throw upgrades at it left, right and centre to make it their full 2013 car. I stress ‘they say’! Whether that happens or not is a different story.

    5. @craig-o Pic will also have to sit out Free Practices. Deducting from this article and the one about VDG in this round up, Pic will have to sit out FP1 in China.
      But the burden for VDG will be bigger, because Caterham will introduce their proper 2013 car at Bahrain.

      1. Scrap that, I read the dutch version already and couldn’t remember about Pic, but it’s in the article.

  3. LOL funny caption xDDD

  4. Caption winner is awesome!

  5. Brilliant caption! XD

    1. As for Jacques Villeneuve’s statement, I do agree that Red Bull’s situation reeks of Gilles-Pironi. I wouldn’t berate either of them for going for glory, but was it worth the resulting tension?

      I’ll add to that question, at what point do you feel the team should come ahead of the driver?

      1. Traverse (@)
        31st March 2013, 3:17

        but was it worth the resulting tension?


        at what point do you feel the team should come ahead of the driver?

        When both drivers can’t mathematically win the WDC.

        1. Traverse (@)
          31st March 2013, 3:24

          *when neither driver can win the WDC.

        2. @hellotraverse – The tension led to Gilles’ death didn’t it? I wouldn’t say it was worth it in the end.

          But the scenario last week isn’t worth comparing to 1982. As one of the comments on the article regarding 1982 states, things (especially the attitude towards team orders) are different nowadays.

          1. Traverse (@)
            31st March 2013, 4:51

            Tension, stress and pressure are all part of the game. There was plenty of tension between Prost and Senna, likewise Alonso and Hamilton. But neither of these pairings inadvertently contributed to the death of their respective teammates. One terrible situation shouldn’t colour the entire future of F1.

          2. @david-a

            “The tension led to Gilles’ death didn’t it? I wouldn’t say it was worth it in the end”.

            Although he was trying to get even with Pironi. Blaming “tension” as his cause of death is inaccurate technically. Gilles died because of a collsion with a slow backmarker. Remember he wasn’t on a timed lap. He was still flying obviously. As James Hunt put it, “That man doesn’t know how to drive slowly”. People often talk about how Schumacher and Senna never fought in their respective prime’s. No one ever imagines what Senna Vs Villeneuve would have been like. Nothing short of epic I think!

          3. Saying a tension like this could cause a death again is a bit silly when the cars are as safe as they are at the moment. When drivers are doing back flips, barrel rolls and hitting tyre walls at speeds of 150+ (or all at once practically), and then doing an interview 10 minutes afterwards then I think we can say that they’re for the most part, safer than everyday road users.

          4. No one ever imagines what Senna Vs Villeneuve would have been like. Nothing short of epic I think!

            That just makes my mouth water. It would be insane!

          5. @craig-o – that’d end up being a mental battle I would think, which means 1-0 Senna!

          6. @nick-uk @sankalp88 – I didn’t mean that a death could happen in this scenario. I was pointing out what ended up happening in 1982, even though, yes, it won’t happen again, and it wasn’t truly a direct consequence of what happened in San Marino anyway.

      2. at what point do you feel the team should come ahead of the driver?

        I would say the team is ultimately always ahead of the driver. While both drivers have the green flag to race, then it of course should be each driver for himself. But any time a team directs a driver to do something the onus is on the driver to remember his contract, and respect the team and it’s sponsors, the ones’ who pay him the big bucks to do what he loves. Sure it’s all well and good to sit in our armchairs and rail for full out racing at all times for every lap between every driver, all the decisions regarding risk to be made by the driver, but that is not the reality.

        One terrible situation shouldn’t colour the entire future of F1. Nobody is suggesting it does. JV merely points out what can happen when this type of team distraction eats at a driver. The ignoring of a team request toward Pironi, ala SV last weekend, has always been said to have had some role to play in the death of JV’s Dad. JV of all people is understandably cogniscent to what he saw SV do and how MW feels post-event, and the ‘new’ atmosphere that must exist in the garage now.

        1. Oops. I was only supposed to quote that top line from @scuderiavincero. The rest of it is me.

          @nick-uk Ironically, JV would be one to agree with your comment about current car safety. He’s been saying for years, basically, stop dumbing down everything, eg. the tracks. The cars are safe enough…don’t ruin F1 with so much precaution that there is no longer some risk. I paraphrase of course but in general that is JV’s view.

          So obviously JV would also say that just because the cars and tracks are safer than ever, does not mean you have to unnecessarily tempt fate. Anything can happen at any time, and it would be folly to just assume that nothing bad will ever happen again, even when the drivers are out there being respectful to each other and having a great, sporting, competitive race. So why invite distractions when even under the best of circumstances it is still flesh and blood in the cockpits of projectiles going upwards of 200mph at times. It has always been said that they can never making car racing safe…just safer.

          1. Thanks for tagging me @robbie. Left it for one day, and I miss an entire debate. :P

  6. On this day in F1

    Damon Hill won a rain-soaked Brazilian Grand Prix on this day in 1996:

    I didn’t know F1 cars ran in the rain. I just thought the drivers whinged until qualifying gets delayed till sunday.

    1. @prof-kirk Those days are gone unfortunately and it’s the worst thing that’s happend to F1.

    2. by the way, that deserves COTD

    3. Traverse (@)
      31st March 2013, 3:56

      The last three properly rain-soaked races that were allowed to continue uninterrupted were Monza 2008, Silverstone 2008 and Fuji 2007. All of which were entertaining from start to finish. There are too many health and safety obsessives around nowadays.

      1. Fuji 2007 saw the first third of the race run behind the safety car, which was farcical in itself. But at least they ran, which is much better than what we get today.

        1. Traverse (@)
          31st March 2013, 14:03

          I meant without a red flag stoppage, but you’re right about the safety car though. They should allow the race to continue regardless, even if there’s a deluge that transforms the track into a sea that even Moses couldn’t part. :-)

      2. Silverstone 2008 wasn’t really that wet, There was that big downpour mid-race but that brought out the safety car as everyone began aquaplaning.

        The problem now isn’t so much the health & safety aspect, Its that modern cars don’t work all that well in the rain because there isn’t really a defined wet setup anymore.
        Up until around 10yrs back there were big differences between a wet & dry setup, Now apart from more downforce & the ride height change (More due to the larger inter/wet tyres), You don’t see the same sort of big suspension changes & engine map changes to make cars more compliant & drivable.

        I also think there’s an element of going on the side of caution after some of the wet races we saw through the 90s where the drivers call’s about it been too wet was ignored (Adelaide 89/91, Suzuka 94, Spa 98).

        The start at Spa 98 in particular, None of the drivers actually wanted that race to start normally, They all wanted a SC start & they were ignored & we then had the big crash.
        Interestingly despite the way it looked, Most of that race actually wasn’t that wet, There were periods where the rain was extremely bad (At the start & Mid-race around the time of the Schumacher/Coulthard & Fisichella/Nakano crashes) but for most of the race it wasn’t really all that bad.

        The way it works now, If the majority of drivers question the safety of the conditions the stewards listen & its only then you get the SC or Red Flag.

        1. Then again, how many times have we heard Vettel in 1st going on and on about how undriveable it is when other drivers aren’t half so vocal about it. In this situation the leader simply wants to milk the safety car for as long as possible to delay their opponents the chance to overtake.

          The safety car gets used way too much in my opinion. Maybe with all the sports talks about cost cutting the just want to justify carting a dozen ÂŁ200,000+ cars around with them. There are an infinite amount of cheaper and more fuel efficient cars that could do the job.

          The rules about lapped cars being allowed to overtake after 3 laps behind it is even worse. It just delays things even more. Leading drivers should stop complaining about cars that are a lap down. Backmarkers are a part of racing. If you are in 2nd with two backmarkers infront of you and the leader during a safert car restart… tough! That’s the hand you got dealt today, now get on with the job of racing!

          Rant over.

          1. Then again, how many times have we heard Vettel in 1st going on and on about how undriveable it is when other drivers aren’t half so vocal about it.

            But consider that you don’t get to hear all the team radio comms that are going on.

            From my experience 90% of the time you have 95% of the drivers on the same page regarding asking for safety cars, red flags etc…

            I remember Fuji 2007, Everyone criticized the safety car been out so long, Especially since they moved to inter’s so quickly when it came in, However that day every single driver out there came back over the radio saying it was too wet to start & after about 10 laps there was only 2 drivers who felt it should start (Hamilton & Sato) & the lap before it did start there were still many saying it was still too wet in places.
            The thing that caught everyone out that day was that been a new track (For F1), Nobody really knew how quickly the water would clear & to everyone’s surprise the standing water clearly extremely fast which is why they moved to Inter’s.
            When Alonso crashed it had just started raining a lot harder & I wasn’t surprised someone went off at that point to be honest.

            I also think that something else fans tend to not consider is that the TV pictures tend to make the conditions look better than they actually are.
            During the 2010 Korean Gp it didn’t look to dark on TV yet I gather it was practically pitch black when the race finished.

            Even at Fuji in 2007 when the rain was at its heaviest & the track was practically flooded down at turn 1 on the TV pictures it didn’t look all that bad.

            Its the same with visibility, The cameras tend to see through the spray better than the human eye does so when your watching from an in-car camera & can see the car infront through the spray, A lot of the time the drivers will be running blind with much less visibility.

            It tends to be the lack of visibility that scares drivers the most, Doing 150mph blind down a straght not knowing if someone’s spun or whatever ahead of you is truly terrifying.

            Since he’s been discussed thinks to JV’s comments its worth remembering that Didier Pironi’s F1 career was ended because he drove over Prost’s Renault due to low visibility on the straights in the wet at Hockenheim. He moved over to pass a car & was unable to see Prost’s car in the spray, Similar thing happened when Senna hit Brundle at Adelaide in 1989, Blinded by the spray.

          2. @nick-uk – they’re selfish animals are F1 drivers, they just want everything to be centred around what will benefit them.

            Remember Prost famously waving to have the race stopped during the Monaco Grand Prix of 1984 – you could say that he was just fearful that Senna would catch him.

          3. Remember Prost famously waving to have the race stopped during the Monaco Grand Prix of 1984 – you could say that he was just fearful that Senna would catch him.

            Yes but also consider that after the race most the other drivers backed him up on wanting the race to be stopped.

            I also read an article at the time in which it was pointed out that the rain had started coming down exceptionally hard & that the swimming pool section of track was quickly flooding & that a few minutes after the race ended it was totally under water & that theres no way they could have continued racing through it.

          4. Don’t get me wrong Dizzy, I agree with you. Just pointing out that this has happened for a while.

  7. Brilliant caption comment, even though it’s childish.

  8. Jacques Villeneuve is an idiot. He’s talking of the early ’80s as if it is today. Anyway, I’ve always felt that blaming Didier Pironi for Gilles Villeneuve’s death was insane. Pironi didn’t throw Villeneuve off the road or something.
    Maybe indirectly, Pironi’s antics at Imola did lead to Villeneuve treating him as just another competitor and not a teammate. But there’s no way Pironi can be faulted for Villeneuve’s death. And Jacques, big-mouth that he is, doesn’t need to remind anyone of that horrible episode. It makes no sense to draw parallels. F1 drivers know that there are always chances of huge accidents happening when they venture out, and I’m sure a mentally tough person like Webber will not let what happened at Malaysia, change his outlook to racing.
    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Villleneuve was mentally weak. All I’m saying is times have changed.

    1. @wsrgo I think it’s a fair comparison. Not the extreme end result but the heart of the matter. That was a betrayal as this is also. That ended badly as this will end badly-if SV will require help from MW he can forget about it, for example. Also people caught up in the shock of Gilles’ death tend to forget the other consequence of what Pironi did at Imola 1982:he turned most of the Ferrari team against him. The atmosphere was bad there and it hurt his title bid despite having by far the fastest car. By the time of his career-ending-poetic-justice accident at Hockenheim Pironi led the WDC but not by as much as he should have been given the car he had. Now, I’m not saying that most of RBR dislike SV now but surely the Webber half of the garage do. Intensely.

      So really, the only part you can’t compare is the death result. Advise you that before you’re calling an F1 and Indycar champion names, to look in the mirror, Mr. Armchair expert

      1. If Mark Webber succeded in not following team-orders then I think his actions would definetly turn everyone at RedBull against him. In Vettel’s case is different. Unlike Pironi, Sebastian won 3 championships for the team and by far he’s the only one who most likely will challenge for this year’s title. In the end it’s fair to say that Vettel did what was best for the team as he increased the chances for them to get another WDC, as we saw in recent years those 7 extra points could be crucial for the championship’s outcome. It’s more a matter of a right thing done wrong.
        Knowing RedBull, I think the problem is well forgotten and they will continue to blame others for what they themselves do.

        1. +1
          The Point was Well Summed up @klaas

        2. @klaas I didn’t say everyone, and certainly Webber’s status at RBR is not as high as that of Gilles was at Ferrari. I said “Webber’s side of the garage dislike him intensely”

          It was the wrong and unnecessary thing done wrong there was nothing right about it. You’re just trying to excuse the inexcusable. It’s wrong also from Vettel’s completely practical point of view even if you’re ok with him being a traitor and a huge ****. As I said above if Vettel needs help from Webber in the future he can forget about it. Was that worth it?

          You say, “knowing Red Bull they forgot about”. You seem to have a lot of inside info. Care to share where from? Or you’re just basing it on your “great minds think alike” connection with Dr. Helmet?

      2. @montreal95 I don’t think what I said deserved a personal attack.
        Monsieur Villeneuve may be a champion, but so is Schumacher, and people call him all sorts of names.(Does Schummel ring a bell?) And anyway ask away, most people think Jacques is very outspoken, too much for his own good.
        ‘Poetic justice’? That’s squalid…you shouldn’t say that about anyone, especially a Grand Prix driver.
        Ferrari didn’t have the fastest car in ’82. Renault was quicker, but Ferrari had better reliability. Towards the end Brabham’s new BMW turbo was better…
        Winning a debate without mounting a personal attack, is a skilled art. Unfortunately, a few people have failed to master it.
        Anyway as @klaas put it, you cannot put Seb in Didier’s place. Seb is the darling of the team, more like Gilles, and it’ll take a lot more than this “betrayal” for the team to go against him.

        1. @wsrgo Well, since JV isn’t here to answer, then have at it, sure. Call him whatever you like. But since I happen to completely agree with him and I said in my first post here after the race that it’s Imola 82 all over again then I consider it a personal attack on me and entitled to return the favor. So it indeed seems some can’t win a debate without personal attacks. Some also think they are somehow elevated above others. Some think both unfortunately

          Never heard MSC being called Schummel, but heard him being called The Scum. Well deserved for the very many unsportive things he has done. You called JV names just because he doesn’t agree with you, which is wrong IMO so I’ll reply to you as I please.

          Pironi contributed to the most exciting ever and honorable(equally important for me) driver being killed. So I’ll say what I please about him too

          Ferrari was faster over a race distance than Renault. Being fast over 1 lap and then explode in the race(or drive like a taxi to prevent the explosion) won’t bring you results. For most of 1982 Ferrari was the ultimate car:fast enough and reliable enough. Agree about Brabham but that was too late for them.

          I didn’t claim anywhere that the outcome will be equal, only the situation itself. I said that Webber’s side of the garage dislike SV intensely now not the whole team. That doesn’t mean it won’t end badly. They’ve cancelled the post-victory photo shoot for the first time ever. That looks like a team full of brotherly love to you?

          Anyway all of the above is OT. We’re discussing JV’s comment here. He didn’t say anywhere what the true outcome will be. Neither did he say that this case’s bad outcome will be in any way similar to Imola 82. He just said that such things can have very bad outcomes and brought Imola 1982 as an example

          1. @montreal95

            Never heard MSC being called Schummel

            Shows how much you know about F1. JV has done several bad things too, starting with his anti-Button rantings at BAR in 2003. I’m not a Button fan, but what Jacques did was incredibly uncalled for. BAR kicked him out, and instantly BAR improved(refer to the 2004 F1 season).
            And sorry, but I had not read your previous comment, thus there is no chance of what I said being a personal attack on you. I only said what I feel.

          2. @wrsgo I am offended on JV’s behalf for your unfair and unjustified insults towards him. I vehemently disagree with your stance but I keep in perspective that you obviously simply don’t like JV and therefore are talking nonsense. I find so much wrong with your comments that I can’t even begin to point out the issues I have, so I won’t. It would take me all day, I’d have to write a novel, and I sense I would only be hitting my head against a brick wall anyway with more nonsense from you.

          3. @wsrgo That you deduce this “Shows how much you know about F1” from that “Never heard MSC being called Schummel” says everything about your deductive reasoning skills.

            Anyway, you haven’t responded to what I said about JV’s comment:he didn’t say anything factually wrong there, as I said above. Fair enough if you disagree with him, but do you call names anyone who disagrees with you?

          4. @robbie Why don’t you take a bit of effort to try and point out my shortcomings? I always welcome a good discussion. I don’t like JV, simply because he’s too outspoken for his own good. God knows why he always targets Vettel and Raikkonen, and is mum about everyone else. Very few other ex-F1 drivers(apart from Lauda maybe) are as active as him. And I really LOL-ed at your metaphors and your ability to see the future!
            @montreal95 I do realise that maybe the adjective I used was wrong…fair enough…I accept. And ‘shows how much you know about F1′ can mean anything from you know a lot to you know nothing..’Schummel’ was a commom name used to refer to means ‘cheat’ in German.
            You referred to Pironi’s maiming as ‘poetic justice’. I take offence to that, just as you take offence to me calling JV an idiot. Not just that, but you’re questioning his ability, saying that he should have been more comfortably ahead in the WDC. I’m not sure how you’re saying that, what references you’re using and how you came to that conclusion.

  9. The look on Webbers face might just be regarding the decision at Caterham. If the team wants consistancy, they need to get their young drivers in the car as much as they can, helping to develop it and get more from it. This decision shows them clutching at straws, the only rational reason I can see to this is if they are getting a financial backing from the other drivers Friday demo drives, because that’s all the are! Taking away valuable time from their racers will only punish them on the scoreboard. Pic may have spoken to soon with his no regrets comment, Caterham have been breaking promises for years.

  10. Traverse (@)
    31st March 2013, 3:02

    The winning caption is good, but my personal favourite was this effort by @tristanh – Mark couldn’t believe what Sutil was offering to do to Vettel in the club tonight to teach him a lesson.

    1. That’s horrible.

      1. Traverse (@)
        31st March 2013, 4:59

        I know, that’s why I like it. XD

        1. Kinda sick IMO :X

          Glad that didn’t get picked. It’s in bad taste.

          1. Traverse (@)
            31st March 2013, 18:13

            I have a dark sense of humour ;-)

  11. already know what the wiunner is </blockquote
    I think you too have a typo there Keith

  12. Thanks for the birthday mention @keithcollantine !
    Much appreciated :) The work you put in to the site is second to none. For years I’ve tried different websites to get F1 news, but now yours is the first website I visit! Keep up the great work Keith and enjoy the season :)

  13. Anele (@anele-mbethe)
    31st March 2013, 8:28

    Gentlemans agreement aside, vettel did the right thing just as rosberg should have passed Lewis. They both had strategies which allowed them to push during the final stint and that their teammates had used more fuel earlier in the race to put themselves ahead shouldn’t be their problem. in all of this it’s forgotten that vettel managed his fuel and tyres so he wouldn’t be forced to turn down the engine. Webber and Hamilton shouldn’t be allowed to benefit from pushing earlier and not playing the long game.

    1. @anele-mbethe– finally, a sensible comment! +1 x 10^99 to you sir! ;)

      1. While I too felt initially that one driver shouldn’t have to pay for the other driver using up more of his resources earlier on, as I thought about it, it’s a team…we shouldn’t assume that MW and LH were all on their own in deciding how much to push the car early on…they may have been driving all along as requested by the team, from lap one, two drivers on each team using slightly different strategies, by design.

        For a week now it’s been all about teams…team orders…obeying or disregarding team orders…what constitutes a team….team team team…the word has been used a billion times on F1 forums in the last week. But in spite of that, we are to assume that the drivers MW and LH themselves were to be blamed for the state of their cars in the last third of the race? I would suggest that it was more likely the team effort overall that put those cars is the state they were for the last third of the race, and likely why the teams made decisions not to punish the leading drivers for a team strategy that occurred in race 2 of the season while they are all still learning what to make of today’s cars, tires, and competitors, under what has so far been variable conditions at the first 2 races of the season.

        1. Anele (@anele-mbethe)
          1st April 2013, 22:06

          that’s a very thought provoking point…it’s a tough situation for the teams to handle. solution is no limits on engines, fuel the cars to finish, turn the engine to max output and we can enjoy hard racing to the very end of all races

          1. Anele (@anele-mbethe)
            1st April 2013, 22:21

            @robbie hopfully the teams learn from this because whatever strategies Webber and Hamilton has clearly weren’t the fastest over race distance

  14. “Damon Hill won a rain-soaked Brazilian Grand Prix on this day in 1996.”‘
    Will we ever see something like this in this day and age? NO!

  15. Thanks Keith. That’s my first ever caption competition win to go with my one COTD!

  16. I find that first link pretty funny, seeing as the only thing about the race which I’ve heard fans fault is the organisation.

  17. On the Brazil 1996 race.

    I remember at the time the drivers said that the conditions were “On the limit of what the cars & tyres could cope with”.

    It was after that GoodYear produced the monsoon tyres, However they were never used as it never got wet enough for them so they stopped producing them concluding they weren’t worth the continued R&D cost.

  18. Villeneuve was a bit dramatic with his comment. Sure it might bring him back memories but <i wouldn´t go so far as to say the webber/vettel rivalry could be fatal… at least not with these cars.

    1. I think his point is about the poison that can be allowed to eat at the whole team from this type of event. JV, always a bit of a daredevil himself, has been saying for years now that the cars and tracks are safe enough and that they shouldn’t dumb down F1 anymore. And I know you wouldn’t go so far as to say the MW/SV rivalry could be fatal, but then you didn’t lose your Dad in a F1 car. None of us has. I think JV should be given a little leaway even by those who think he is being a bit dramatic. There’s nothing wrong with someone so close to this issue pointing out he’d rather not see a repeat of history, but would rather others learn from his Dad’s death. Perhaps JV is hoping his Dad’s death won’t have been in vain if some can look from that situation and not allow distractions in F1 to harm themselves or someone else in the future.

  19. “Vettel’s actions at last Sunday’s Malaysian GP have sparked a worldwide storm. Despite a team order to hold position in second, the 25-year-old waited until his team-mate turned his engine down and then leaped past to take a valuable victory and seven extra points.”

    I think that’s misconstruing the facts to shine Vettel in a bad light: he attacked him when he did because he had the undercut from having just pitted, there was nothing sinister about it.

    1. Traverse (@)
      31st March 2013, 22:53

      Agreed. The fact that Seb pitted first would’ve set alarm bells ringing in Mark’s cockpit (and no doubt Mark’s engineer would’ve informed him of the potential threat from Seb). And if the plan was to hold position, why didn’t they pit Webber first?

      1. @hellotraverse – really, Vettel only lost out to Webber initially because he pitted to early to rid of the intermediates, so he was just returning the compliment in the final stint.

        1. In terms of misconstruing the facts, I think the fact that SV disobeyed the team, stole a win that he himself has said he is not proud of, and that he has had to apologize for in front of the whole team, proves that there was everything sinister about what he did. To boil it down to simply having ‘the undercut from having just pitted’ is miscontruing the facts much moreso than saying “the 25-year-old waited until his team-mate turned his engine down and then leaped past to take a valuable victory and seven extra points.”

          He gave the team and his teammate the middle finger and told them with his actions that he will do as he himself sees fit and never mind the entity called Red Bull and it’s sponsors who put millions of dollars in his bank account and allow him riches and Championships for doing what he loves.

          1. Traverse (@)
            1st April 2013, 20:55

            He gave the team and his teammate the middle finger and told them with his actions that he will do as he himself sees fit

            And I for one like him all the more for it! RING DING DING!

          2. Lol, to each their own. But it must have taken something off this ‘glorious’ thing that SV did, when he stood there looking and feeling like he did something wrong as each minute went by and each contact with the key players occurred and his unpopular deed sunk in once he got out of the car. I would have thought that had he done something to revere, he would have stood behind his action with the defiance of someone who will stop at nothing to attain his goal. Rather, he looked embarassed. Why would he have something to apologize for, and why would he stoop so low to apologize for winning, if he did something so champion-worthy?

            He stole a win and wouldn’t even defend it. That’s not, to me, true champion type behaviour, but that of a spoiled sport. I’d have been a little more impressed, and a little more understanding of his supposed winning desires akin to champions, if he at least backed up his own actions with something more. The burning desire of the true greats I understand. Winning this way under the guise of greatness I do not.

Leave a Reply

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

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.