Raikkonen goes Motocross riding during F1 break

F1 Fanatic round-up

Kimi Raikkonen, Motocross, 2013In the round-up: Kimi Raikkonen spent part of his break between F1 races rising a Motocross bike.

Links

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

Team owner Kimi Raikkonen ripping it off in Belgium last week (Ice One Racing via Tumblr)

Pictures of Kimi Raikkonen riding a Motocross bike recently.

Hamilton favoured by Mercedes – McNish (BBC)

“Even though it’s not official, there’s definitely a strong focus on Hamilton being their main challenge for the championship.”

Horner says RRA not the way forward (Autosport)

“A resource restriction is an agreement that is fundamentally flawed because of the structures of different companies: Ferrari operates in a completely different way to McLaren or Mercedes or Red Bull. The best way to control costs is through stable regulations.”

Coffee, tea or me? (Air Asia via Facebook)

“Are you ready for ‘Coffee, Tea or Me?’ Yes, the bet was not forgotten! Next month, you can enjoy the inflight services from our newest recruit, Sir Richard Branson.”

No point complaining about tyres, says Alesi (NBC)

“From a tyre point of view, the drivers will have to find the best compromise between performance and degradation, which is exactly the way that it has always been in Formula One.”

Hamilton: I won?t walk it in China (The Sun)

“Mercedes were in a unique situation at the track last year and got everything right. The tyres are different this year so you have to anticipate that it?s going to be a little bit different there for us.”

Tweets

Comment of the day

Will Rush alienate F1 fans by being too commercial? @Bleeps_and_Tweaks doesn’t think so:

From what I can see it looks good, and Hemsworth and Bruhl look pretty convincing in their respective roles.

Rush is and always was going to be Hollywood, it?s a movie, not a documentary. Hardcore F1 fans would always argue the sport doesn’t need to be spiced up. But this is about attracting the F1 hardcore, moderate fans and ‘not normally interested in F1′ type of film fan, therefore it’s got to have added impact and visual appeal.

I’m not expecting anything as stylish as ‘Le Mans’, because I think this has cost too much money and they need to appeal to a wide audience to recoup that. Personally I can’t wait though, this trailer has made me more enthusiastic, not less.
@Bleeps_and_Tweaks

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Mad Eric, SLR, Dirgegirl and Traverse!

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

Happy birthday to 1997 world champion Jacques Villeneuve!

Image courtesy MMP74

Advert | Go Ad-free

115 comments on Raikkonen goes Motocross riding during F1 break

  1. I have to wonder whether Kimi even bothered asking his boss whether that whole motocross thing was okay…

  2. woogle said on 9th April 2013, 0:07

    Leave him he know’s what he’s doing

  3. Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 9th April 2013, 0:12

    Though I agree that a simple budget cap is not the way forward for controlling costs effectively, I emphatically disagree with what he suggests should occur:

    “For example the biggest impact on Sauber’s costs next year will be a change of regulations with the drive train, so really the most sensible way to contain costs are stable, clear and concise regulations – both sporting and technical.”

    F1 is all about innovation – that is the basis of the manufacturer competition and what makes F1 so exciting from a technical perspective. If you remove that, you kill part of the sport in my view.

    Also, I would argue that is exactly the way to increase costs and the spread of the field: the bigger teams can then just spend millions upon millions fine-tuning their machines to the a maximum, leaving the smaller teams in their wake. If we had a more open rule book, and a proper method of restricting the spending of the teams, the smaller teams would be far more likely to be able to compete with the more well-funded, well-established firms (such as Lotus did in the 60′s and 70′s for example).

    • James (@iamjamm) said on 9th April 2013, 8:36

      Of course Horner wants stable regulations, Red Bull will keep on winning! ;)

      • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 9th April 2013, 9:38

        @iamjamm – that’s the thing though, Adrian Newey thrives on regulatin changes, not stability! I think his comments are a bit nonsensical…

        • Have to agree – Adrian Newey is a genius, but given 3 years to develop their cars, it’s quite clear to see that other technical directors are able to catch up. Stable regulations are the last thing that someone like Adrian would be looking for, so it’s not in RBRs best interest to have stability.

          On the flip side of that regulations which say “1.6L, V6, driver needs to sit facing forward, physical dimensions of the car have to fit inside this box” the way it might have been in the 1960s would be totally impractical. Aerodynamics would utterly dominate and aerodynamic gains are what a lot of the teams complain about being the most expensive to find. Even if you eliminate wings, engineers will find a way to produce downforce. Keep banning those methods and you’re just driving costs up again as engineers have to be more and more clever and spend more and more hours.

          If you try and control costs by rigorous review, then it’s not Adrian Newey who the F1 teams would need to clone, it’d be the associates at Arthur Anderson. Instead of the best engineers winning races, it’d be the best accountants.

          The solution to this problem is really no where near simple.

          • @hwkii – I think the best way to do it would be to restrict what work the teams can do in the simulators and the like, and how much they can spend on materials. So it would still be difficult to enforce but not as much as simply limiting spending to say 50m€ – that is just asking for evasions and hidden expenditure.

        • uan (@uan) said on 10th April 2013, 5:35

          I believe what Adrian Newey has said before is that he doesn’t like regulation changes that stifle creativity and innovation. He feels a lot of the current regulations are about being more and more restrictive and he doesn’t like that.

  4. Hairs (@hairs) said on 9th April 2013, 0:13

    “Man whose success is partially down to outspending other people not in favour of spending restrictions shocker”

    “Man who knows that during periods of stable regulations large spending teams pull away from smaller rivals due to an ability to grind away at nominal gains at great expense and has limitless budget supports stable regulations upset”

    “Area man C. Horner, pictured with large suitcase of money and a unique team of on-track fabricators, urged regulators to keep an eye on unfair pressures being put on low income neighbors by nefarious rule makers”.

  5. montreal95 (@montreal95) said on 9th April 2013, 0:23

    Wholly agree with the COTD. And that pass on Will Power by Charlie Kimball is the best so far this season, in any series!

  6. OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 9th April 2013, 1:05

    Lotus should be strict this time. No matter if it’s Kimi or not. They lost Kubica on that way, letting him do risky sports on spare time

  7. Traverse (@) said on 9th April 2013, 2:03

    I’m sure that Jacques Villeneuve is honoured to have entered this. sacred world on the same day as me. :P

    As for my present from the crazy world of F1, I would love a Ham-Vet-Alonso podium at this weekend’s Chinese GP (If that’s not too much). :-)

  8. matt90 (@matt90) said on 9th April 2013, 2:04

    I am quite bored of every BBC F1 article being about how Hamilton has the potential to win this year- we get it, there isn’t much news and you like Hamilton. So do I, but forcing an interview about how awesome he is with a different ex-driver for 3 out of the last 4 articles is a bit much.

    ‘Lewis Hamilton favoured by Mercedes says Allan McNish’
    ‘Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes can win title – Sir Jackie Stewart’
    ‘McLaren suffering without Lewis Hamilton, says John Watson’

    If they’re going to keep repeating the same article they could at least do some proper analysis and combine the ex-driver quotes within that. It would seem like less lazy and repetitive reporting.

    • OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 9th April 2013, 2:51

      Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton Hamilton yeah that covers your quota for boredom as well!

    • JimmyTheIllustratedBlindSolidSilverBeachStackapopolis III said on 9th April 2013, 12:51

      the bbc tends to do pretty shoddy not to mention almost zero work if theres not a race on that weekend. Theres been a 3 week gap and they have published about three articles it’s really… you know what.

      The same word i’d use to describe their appointment of mcnish as 5 live commentator. I’d have honestly prefered karthikeyan at least he has more experience in f1 and isn’t a complete hypocrite.

    • Funkyf1 (@funkyf1) said on 10th April 2013, 14:46

      Personally I hope Rosberg spanks him!

    • Solo (@solo) said on 18th April 2013, 11:34

      Mentioning him often isn’t exactly in his favor. Quite the opposite. British media are hardly kind to Hamilton. They make articles about him because it gives good page views but they ain’t happy with the half breed black kid being more famous that their little white boys full of the British glory so most of their articles actually have diminishing factors or low blows against him.
      Just look at this article for example. Yeah it’s about Hamilton but only to say that his supposedly favored. So not really good for Hamilton is it?

  9. Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 9th April 2013, 4:08

    Even though it’s not official, there’s definitely a strong focus on Hamilton being their main challenge for the championship.

    NO!!! You think???? noooo ! that’s crazy ! whaaaat? really?? naaaaaaaaaaah… can’t be… but come on, really?? don’t fool me ! Don’t you fool me Allan? Are you sure?

    OFC there’s strong focus on Hami being #1. Rosberg who’s been in the team since 2010 already got held behind just in the 2nd race. And no wonder, considering the effort and money Mercedes invested in Hamilton. It’s their star now, and Rosberg is quite a long way behind…

    • Blackmamba (@blackmamba) said on 9th April 2013, 7:24

      @@fer-no65
      What is crazy is taking an ex-driver’s opinion as gospel. And you are right, Rosberg has been in that seat for so long and has under-performed so much so that Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 considered leaving Formula 1 all together. But the arrival of Hamilton persuded them to stay. Damn him right? So excuse Ross for putting a little more faith in him and providing him with all the conditions to succeed and keep Merc interested in investing in F1, the same conditions Rosberg had for 3 yrs and failed miserably.

      • Funkyf1 (@funkyf1) said on 10th April 2013, 14:55

        @blackmamba Are you serious? The Mercedes team for the past 3 yrs has been like a bunch of 2yr olds playing darts. Hit, Miss, Miss, Miss, Miss, the entire board, Miss, Hit. The personnel they have recruited over the past 12 months have put them in this position and won them a top driver. But to say that Rosberg has failed, I can’t agree there. He may as well of been riding a donkey at some of the races. Hamilton is a great driver but personally I hope Rosberg spanks him!

    • celeste (@celeste) said on 9th April 2013, 7:38

      I love the leavel of sarcams in your post

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 9th April 2013, 10:35

      @fer-no65

      People are what they do, not what they say (they do). Therefore, what Mercedes did in Malaysia should be qualified as favoring Lewis over Nico.

      I don’t know whether it’s a team policy or there’s some truth in David Coulthard’s supposition that Brawn did not want to harm Lewis for a mistake of someone else (technicians who underfueled his car), but from my perspective Nico was ‘robbed’ by his own team.

      I’d say leading a team with Nico and Lewis as drivers, Horner, Boulier or Domenicalli would’ve to the same, but that doesn’t make it right…

  10. Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 9th April 2013, 4:11

    From a tyre point of view, the drivers will have to find the best compromise between performance and degradation, which is exactly the way that it has always been in Formula One.

    Thank you, Jean ! That argument “in the old days we used to push right on the limit the whole race” isn’t ideal either and is quite far what F1 should be. How many times have we seen drivers nursing around the track to save tyres? It’s a compromise between trying to go as fast as possible and saving tyres. Just as it’s a compromise to have lower downforce for better top speed or higher downforce for better corner speed.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 9th April 2013, 7:06

      Or indeed playing it safe and driving at 80% most of the race weekend and trying to get the maximum out of them and risk dropping back vs. a great result @fer-no65, I agree its good to hear it was not pushing all the way for ever before Pirelli.

    • Blackmamba (@blackmamba) said on 9th April 2013, 7:11

      Don’t you think it’s ridiculous that tyres can not last 10 laps now, and that there is too much luck of the draw now in F1. Perfect example, Perez had 3 races last year where he qualified way down the order and because of this he could choose to start on the harder tyres which are more durable on high fuel allowing him to slice through the field after switching to soft tyres on low fuel and improved track conditions. Somehow or other MacLaren thought that was excellent driving, disregarding all the circumstances that made it possible and now Perez is sat in a Macca and Hulkenberg who is more impressive IMO is toilling in a Sauber. What is also wrong is that if you qualify in the top 10 you are not afforded this luxury of choosing what tyre to start on and are vulnerable to someone just out of top 10, making them look good, while you look like you have lost the plot.

      • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 9th April 2013, 8:17

        @blackmamba

        qualified way down the order and because of this he could choose to start on the harder tyres

        But that’s not a fault of the tyres – that’s a fault in the rules, and I agree it’s one that needs to be changed.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 9th April 2013, 8:47

        Somehow I find it hard to see a lucky draw in Perez in the Sauber having several of those drives from the back of the mid-field into top points positions, not to mention that in the past 3 years Kobayashi has had several of them as well.
        All of that has more to do with driver-car combination on the one hand and a very strong influence of the rule that makes the top 10 have to start on the tyres they used for their fastest lap, so maybe you should put your effort behind complaining about that rule, I am sure a very large part of fans here would be happy to see that one go @blackmamba

        • Blackmamba (@blackmamba) said on 9th April 2013, 12:00

          @bascb
          What I mean is that those who qualify in the top 10 are FORCED to pit so early, sometimes within 10 laps, because of the FRAGILITY of the softer compounds not the rules which only determine that they start on those tyres. Because of these early pit-stops to avoid losing time they become vulnerable to traffic, getting stuck behind someone outside the top 10 on the harder tyres as we saw with Vettel stuck behind Sutil in Oz. That is where someone from outside the top 10 can luck out a result, as we saw with Perez last year.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 9th April 2013, 14:18

            No the big difference is actually having to (as you say are forced to) start on tyres that a) are great for a fast lap on low fuel in qualifying but generally not as well suited to starting the race and lasting with 170 kg of fuel on board and b) already have a minimum of 3-4 laps on them shortening their durability for the race @blackmamba

            Vettel was stuck behind Sutil because even on the old hards Sutil was doing a better job than Vettel in his Red Bull (likely also down to the car being setup more to run in free air as opposed to running in dirty air). Vettel got easily past others that were on hards until he ran into Sutil and couldn’t get past. Sutil even pulled away from Vettel at times. Sutil certainly was there due to his stategy, but he stayed there because he could make good on it (until his final stint)

        • uan (@uan) said on 11th April 2013, 4:56

          @bascb

          that’s why I found Kobayashi’s drive in Japan last year pretty stellar – he started 3rd and finished on the podium, meaning he didn’t have the advantage of working an alternate strategy.

      • Jason (@jason12) said on 9th April 2013, 12:27

        omehow or other MacLaren thought that was excellent driving, disregarding all the circumstances that made it possible and now Perez is sat in a Macca

        Yea….
        Seems Macca was blind-sighted here, and made a huge blunder…
        Forgetting Sauber may have somehow (through no particular doing of their own) found their car to be easy on the tyres.

    • Alesi’s quotes: Isn’t Jean Alesi an ambassador for Pirelli? Isn’t Jean Alesi paid by Pirelli to say nice things about tyres?

      Alesi’s not all wrong, but not all right aswell.

      • HoHum (@hohum) said on 9th April 2013, 13:18

        Yes, pretty amazing that a paid ambassador for Pirelli should defend Pirelli tyres, even more amazing that Fer65 would find that credible.
        Alesi, a very fast driver who never won a race, must have been lousy at tyre management.

        • Aus Fan said on 9th April 2013, 13:42

          wow Canada 1995 what now?

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 9th April 2013, 14:08

          Now, now @hohum, while it is perfectly well to point out that Alesi’s salary comes from Pirelli, and that naturally makes him less likely to be critical, and rather likely to hail their efforts, its harsh to say he never won a race!

          I know he did choose exactly the wrong time to be with Ferrari, as slow cars AND reliability did nothing to give them much success, he did in fact win a race in ’95!

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 9th April 2013, 16:08

            @bascb, there I go again, I’m glad he did win one, but if I’m not entirely mistaken I believe that for much of his career he was known as ” the fastest driver not to have won a race”, I guess he finally learned how to manage the tyres for one race at least.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 9th April 2013, 16:59

            you tease @hohum :-)
            It seems he must have fond memories of one of the few races where Pirelli suddenly had competitive tyres in their last stint as tyre supplier to F1 enough to work with them.

    • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 9th April 2013, 10:25

      I think the balance needs to be tilted more in favour of durability (as “driving at 80%” is not enough) but the art of tyre conservation should remain,so in that respect I agree with Alesi.

      • Jason (@jason12) said on 9th April 2013, 13:11

        art of tyre conservation

        Hahahaha…..
        Is that what it’s called now?

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 9th April 2013, 13:33

          @jason12, yes the F1 tyre conservation championship is Bernies latest idea, a whole days TV while 2-driver teams see who can do the most laps on a set of tyres, 2 drivers will be needed to allow the drivers to take potty stops and rest, competition will be intense as drivers struggle to get the most laps in 24 hours without destroying the tyres, Adrian Newey has calculated the optimum speed as 10.45 mph for the Red Bull, Kimi R. reckons 110.45 is his target speed and invited me to join him for sundowners before he flies home.

        • Jason (@jason12) said on 9th April 2013, 13:51

          @hohum
          :D
          Then instead of a WDC, at the end of the season we would have a WTC (World Tyre Conservationist)…..

        • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 9th April 2013, 14:10

          @jason12 @hohum Yea I think that might be taking the **** just a tad, but seriously going back to indestructible Bridgestones I’m not sure would improve the racing: drivers can go flat out absolutely, but we’d have no differening strategies and so no opportunity for somebody to “go long” in the hope of making a few places – instead, we’d just have the top guys streaking off into the distance. It doesn’t sound particularly appealing to me!

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 9th April 2013, 22:12

            @vettel1, yea, I know how much you hate it when the fastest driver in the fastest car keeps winning races. :-)

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 9th April 2013, 23:26

            @hohum – when you put it that way… ;)

            No but honestly it’s no fun seeing 20 second leads and no challenges elsewhere, which is why I would support some Pirellism (as I shall now call it) but not to the extent it is at now – that ruins the racing!

          • Jason (@jason12) said on 10th April 2013, 15:09

            but honestly it’s no fun seeing 20 second leads and no challenges elsewhere

            @vettel1
            Why would good tyres lead to that?
            Maybe the number of pit-stops per race can be enforced, eg:
            3 pit-stops per race, last stop must at least be 10 laps before end of the race
            But we need the best tyres possible that Pirelli can produce, used tyres will always perform poorly than a fresh set.
            Everyone wins here:
            - Pirelli’s reputation
            - Drivers, can go all out
            - Reduced team orders
            - Strategic decisions can still be made (new/old tyre performance will still be different)

          • @jason12 – frankly I think forced pit stops are a terrible idea – that is exactly what I wouldn’t want to happen! What I’m suggesting here is that on normal flat-out driving you may have to make two stops, but you have the ability to not drive on the limit and make one (or possibly even no) stops. If we have indestructible tyres, you wouldn’t have that variable to make up a possible car deficit I think which is why I said you’d just have the usual pecking order. Most of the surprise results last year were due to the tyres, and I would like to see an element of that retained.

          • BAN DRS THOUGH!

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 10th April 2013, 16:18

            Going from 1 mandated stop to 3 of them, proposed as an improvement from quickly degrading tyres, and throwing in more limit on when they can be taken? No thanks, @jason12.

            Instead it would be better if they got rid of the top 10 starting on q3 tyres and the rule mandating use of both compounds per race. That way at least when there are tyres that are slower but can see you to the end, its a viable strategical option. Off course you might still ruin them ahead of their time, or you could get beaten by people on faster, but less lasting tyres. But that is racing!

          • Jason (@jason12) said on 10th April 2013, 16:54

            @vettel1 and @bascb
            Both of you guys haven’t stated WHY 2 or 3 mandatory stops is a bad idea (as opposed to these tyres)….
            What we do know so far is that drivers pushing at 60-80% for more than half of an F1 race is just unacceptable. We can’t blame Team Principals worrying about these tyres and issuing instructions either.
            F1 simply cannot continue in this fashion.
            I want the guys to drive the wheels off that thing! :D…..

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 10th April 2013, 17:26

            @jason12 – I don’t like even 1 mandated stop (which is what we have now, 1 stop to change from one to the other compound), it would limit the race to 3 stints for everyone, and with mandating when to take the last one on top, it means taking all strategy away.
            What is then the added value of having them? That we see more cars “battling in the pits”, or more pit-stop errors to decide the race? Or have more opportunities to have a quick inlap or outlap define the result?
            I do not see how that is in any way better racing than forcing them to pit by having tyres that drop off so fast that cars have to stop for new ones 2 or 3 times (note – there is still scope for a team to vary and be “better” in this aspect, be it a small one).

            Even if you make the tyres last all race and had no pitstops, you would still not see drivers “drive the wheels off” their cars, as teams will still order them to hold station etc. at the soonest viable moment to be on the safe side of caution.

          • @jason12 – I think I implied why with my comment – that destroys the whole point in degradable tyres, varied strategy. If everyone has to do two stops it defeats the purpose of those stops, whereas if somebody does two and somebody else does none we will see that interesting strategy battle, as the former will be going flat-out but may lose out having to pit more often.

            Basically I would like a toned-down version of what we now have, but having tyres that actually allow the drivers to push 100% without them instantly being torn to shreds.

  11. BasCB (@bascb) said on 9th April 2013, 7:03

    A Solid birthday crowd again today. Enjoy a lovely birthday all of you @mad-eric, @SLR, @Dirgegirl and @hellotraverse

  12. MaroonJack (@maroonjack) said on 9th April 2013, 8:06

    So, Alesi is paid to say good things about Pirelli, but this?

    One thing that doesn’t change at all is that the best teams will always be the most successful, so there is no point for anybody to complain because this will always quite rightly be the case, whatever you do with the regulations.

    Sure. No matter how stupid the regulations, we will always have the best teams at the top. Does that mean that we should not complain about bad rules?

    Amazing logic.

  13. James (@iamjamm) said on 9th April 2013, 8:43

    Team Principle of the current dominant team in F1 says the sport needs stable regulations? Well, I am shocked! Who would have thought that he wouldn’t want regulation changes!?

  14. I recently came back from a short trip of Finland and the entire country talks less about Kimi Raikkonen and F1 than other countries, unfazed by his exploits, or the politics of Red Bull. Very few people care. I don’t know why is that.

  15. Bendanarama (@bendana) said on 9th April 2013, 10:31

    Speaking of Kimi – and I’m sure this will delight @prisoner-monkeys ;-) – The BBC have published this amusing little video of him being his usual Eloquent self:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21909762

    • I don’t think he likes Lee Mckenzie much. The video with Natalie Pinkham on Sky where they go ice racing I think is the most cheerful I’ve ever seen him! Although that was not during a race weekend.

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.