Caterham, Yas Marina, 2013

Fernandes joins critics of double points plan

F1 Fanatic Round-upPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Caterham, Yas Marina, 2013In the round-up: Tony Fernandes joins Luca di Montezemolo and Christian Horner in criticising the plan to offer double points at the last race.


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

Double points a ‘fake fix’ for Fernandes (Reuters)

“The double points is a fake fix. What’s better is to solve the issue and make the racing more compact.”

Teams must act on ‘Alien’ 2014 noses (Autosport)

Cyruk Abiteboul: “Maybe we will have to address that as a collective issue of F1, because we need to be selling some dream.”

Bernie Ecclestone ??forum shopping? lawsuit thrown out by US court (FT, registration required)

“Bernie Ecclestone succeeded in removing one of the legal threats hanging over him after the New York Supreme Court said it had no jurisdiction to consider a $650m lawsuit against the Formula One chief executive.” Read the full decision here (PDF).

Max Mosley?s legacy still felt in F1 (MotorSport)

“Max [Mosley] agreeing it was a good idea to grant those rights for such a valuably long time has caused the sport to be financially raped ever since. Without that, there?d have been no need for the technical sterilisation of the sport (engine freezes, spec tyres, etc), the phoney ways of trying to please the new, less hardcore audiences or the ever-increasing presence of pay drivers on the grid ?ǣ and more than half of the teams would not be in a financially perilous state.”

What may be going on now, and where this might be going (long, speculative and detailed) (A former F1 doc writes)

“The Daily Mail has done it again. With today?s headline they?ve ‘forced’ me to take to my blog to help clarify some of what?s being said.” Referring to this article on Michael Schumacher’s condition.

Jan Magnussen ponders wasted F1 career as McLaren nurture son Kevin (The Guardian)

“Once, humiliatingly, [Jackie] Stewart ?ǣ pushing 60 at the time ?ǣ took Jan for a driving lesson at Oulton Park and let it be known that he was the faster driver.”

Revealed: The 2014 Mercedes-Benz V6 Power Unit (Mercedes via YouTube)

Prime Minister’s Questions, 22/1/2014 (BBC)

Answer on McLaren’s thriving road car business.

Analysis: Ericsson is better than his GP2 record suggests (PaddockScout)

“Off the back of a lacklustre four years in GP2, it?s debatable that Marcus Ericsson deserves his Formula One chance with Caterham on merit.”


Comment of the day

Only showing a profile view of the VJM07 was a cunning move by Force India but not everyone was fooled:

From the side it looks nice, but that nose cone it?s never going to be pretty… It?s such a shame, I loved the low nose cones of the late eighties, early nineties.

This shape, from the side, defines F1 cars. That?s how I used to draw them as a kid… kinda like the 1994 Williams or 1990 Ferrari. Sad the front will inevitably look hideous.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Brent Foster!

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

Kimi Raikkonen, Lotus, Valencia, 2012Kimi Raikkonen prepared for his F1 comeback by testing a Renault R30 in Lotus colours in Valencia two years ago today.

Images ?? Caterham/LAT, Lotus/LAT

57 comments on “Fernandes joins critics of double points plan”

  1. Good to hear some head of a F1 team taking about the double points deal. But (and it’s not a joke) that comment could probably weigh more if it came from a point-scorer

    1. If previous seasons have been anything to go by, then Caterham stand to gain the most. After all, Vettel won two of his four titles well before the final race, so if something like that should happen again, double points will not do much.

    2. They have as many points as Red Bull and Ferrari in 2014

      1. Caterham are championship leaders right now on alphabetical order countback! :P

  2. Fernandes is completely right about aesthetics of the cars. Just when we thought they couldn’t look worse, the FIA makes up regulations that make them look even more disgusting. Seriously, who would want a poster on their wall with stepped noses or the noses we might have this year? Formula 1 cars should look beautiful, it’s just as much about the cars as it is about the racing.

    1. @roald – The regulations were not written specifically to make the cars ugly. They were just written to lower the noses, and that side-profile shot of the VJM07 is probably exactly what the FIA had in mind. The problem is that they never specified the dimensions of the nose cross-section; it probably never even occurred to them. The “alien” nose is a by-product of the teams needing to meet the requirements set out by the regulations, but wanting to minimise the surface area of the tip so as to allow more air to pass under the car.

      Personally, I don’t think the teams have a leg to stand on here. They complain loudly that the cars look ugly, but that ugliness is a direct result of their chasing aerodynamic performance. They are (once again) trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

      1. The problem is that they never specified the dimensions of the nose cross-section

        That is not true @prisoner-monkeys, but its defined as a relatively small area (some 5×5 cm) because it was thought of as the tip of the nose cross-section. Only because the rules do not state that what kind of profile you have to have, and its better not to have much blocking air flow there, that teams are likely to have a narrow piece that joins up at a point further backwards, where a wider X-section is defined,

    2. @roald right. The best posters are the Le Mans of the early 2000s. Great cars!

      1. Chris (@tophercheese21)
        23rd January 2014, 5:49

        I think the 2014 E-Tron is easily a poster car. Looks great.

        1. @tophercheese21 – agreed.

          what an embarrassment for F1 that it longer encourages the production of poster-worthy cars.

    3. The problem is trying to put into words a regulation that makes the cars better looking, something like a minimum radius that could avoid the steep change in the shape of the nose… but I do like Cyril’s comparison with the Alien creature, not least because is one my favourite movies :p

      1. But that presents a new problem: it would require the FIA to anticipate the use of alien noses (I like the description, too) and move to block them in advance.

        People often get upset when the FIA make mid-season rule changes that ban certain parts from being used. But this only happens because the teams go looking for those loopholes, loopholes that are not immediately obvious.

        The same applies here – teams read the rules, saw that there was no minimum cross-section specified, and created designs accordingly.

      1. @mike-e it looks like a bobsled car :)

    4. There are no points to win in a beauty contest.
      In general I find open wheelers ugly so for me it makes no difference how the nose or bodywork looks. And also we haven’t seen any designs in real life yet – so maybe we should wait and see how they’ll look like before starting to complain.

    5. In an ideal world, yeah, F1 cars would all look spectacular and beautiful. But the regulations are like they are for a reason and I for one would much rather have an ugly car which produces better racing and is safer than sacrifice that just so that they look better.

      Substance over style, after all.

      1. That sums it up, really. The whole nose debate is a useless by-product of the silly season.

  3. Several interesting articles today. The pieces about Mosley and Schumacher were pretty depressing unfortunately though.

  4. Kamui is so terribly honest sometimes, his fans made a huge banner for him and he says “really, I don’t like it”. He didn’t learn any PR during his Ferrari year…

    1. In fairness, the sentiment may have come across differently than intended due to the language barrier.

    2. Maybe it’s because it features the team which dumped him…

    3. @omarr-pepper the fact that the banner has the Sauber f1 didn’t bring him good memories.

      1. Still, reading this ought to be pretty heartbreaking for all the fans who rushed to erect a billboard for their favorite driver.

    4. Maybe he doesn’t like this – “A winners platform can be aimed at”


  5. I hope fans don’t lose focus of the other newer more important aspects of the car just because they want a car with a good nose.

    1. @sd it’s hard to avoid the “this cars are ugly” argument tho…

  6. Are people still continuing to vote for the 2014 Ferrari F1 car name? (

    FIAT F14T is currently less that a car length ahead of F166 Turbo.

    F14T – 32%
    F166 Turbo – 31%
    F14 Scuderia – 20%
    F14 Maranello – 12%
    F616 – 5%

    1. As many, I voted F166 turbo for the mere fact that it has the word “turbo” included.

    2. F14T…that’s hilarious:) I’m surprised that Ferrari put that as one of the options.

    3. If they call this year’s Ferrari the F14T, then surely they have to call next year’s Ferrari the F15T.


    4. Disappointing. My 2 least favourite are out in front and my choice is last.

  7. MB (@muralibhats)
    23rd January 2014, 1:20

    I read the comments posted 2 years ago @ here.. and Kimi has indeed proven many people wrong. Yes. The Lotus car was good last two season, but his consistency did make the difference.

  8. Just because an article has been written in Motorsport about the rotten little deal Bernie and Max cooked up and its ramifications for F1 doesn’t mean it is true, but you would have to be unbelievably credulous not to see how easily Bernie has stolen (legally) billions from not only the F1 teams, the racetrack owners but also the fans who have to pay outrageous prices to follow F1. It is only a matter of applied logic to understand the root of F1s problems.

    Please don’t respond with the fallacy that Bernie built up the sport using his own money.

    1. If it is legal, then it is not theft.

      It is not theft from the teams, since in order to prove theft, you need to establish ownership first. Formula 1 has two primary sources of income: race sanctioning fees and television rights. The race sanctioning fees are used to pay off the sport’s debts, while the sanctioning fees already go to the teams.

      As for “stealing from racetrack owners”, firstly you must recognise that the owners of a circuit are not always the promoters of a race, and that the owners are not wholly dependent upon a Grand Prix for income. Secondly, the economics supply and demand dictate that when there is a limited supply of a commodity – in this case, calendar spaces – the price will naturally rise.

      You have been predicting the imminent collapse of the sport under the weight of Ecclestone’s business model for years now, and yet, it has not happened. If anything is going to destroy the sport, it is escalating costs, something which you know perfectly well cannot be laid at the feet of Ecclestone.

      Most importantly, you are accusing Ecclestone of the theft of billions of dollars. This is a very serious allegation, and you have not supplied any proof to substantiate your claims. Were Ecclestone or his lawyers to read these comments of yours, they could probably get the site shut down for libel.

      1. Hm, if you put it in legal terms, then no, this is not theft. But for all purposes of normal living, than what Bernie did, helped by Max, does indeed to all its intents resulted in stealing away the benefits from those that put most in (that is the teams, the tracks and to an extent, the FIA).

        Your argument

        that the owners are not wholly dependent upon a Grand Prix for income

        is the world turned upside down there @prisoner-monkeys. How could anyone live from a race, when they are not allowed to keep ANY proceeds apart from ticket sales, and those are a fraction of what the tracks pay for being allowed to stage a race?

        As for economical priniples and your lecturing on economics – let us say that its clear that you are not an economics teacher @prisoner-monkeys. Because while scarcity does bring up prices (lets for a second presume we have a real market here for the sake of simplifying the discussion), raising prices also means falling demand and any entity that looks at longer term success has to take into account that unsatisfied customers do not buy again. (Unless we are dealing with goods that we cannot live without like water or basic food)

        Oh, and @hohum himself mentions, that the stealing was done in a way that is legal, so thank you for your warning, but it goes amiss. Fact is, that enormous amounts of money get pulled out of the sport for no benefit to the sport (and its participants), which is a very unhealthy situation and a danger to the future of F1.

    2. I have been banging on about that “rotten little deal” for years , I am old enough to have been around at the time. Unfortunately, I cannot see a way out of it unless the teams set up a new series which is an act that the FIA have now outlawed.

      1. @accidental-mick, Unfortunate, I sent an e-mail to Fota urging them to break away from FOM at the time of the last Concordes opening negotiations to no avail and here we are again with the teams being divided and conquered by perfidious Albion Bernie.

        But what the heck, let’s discuss something far more important like who’s really the fastest new/old driver.

      2. @accidental-mick – last hope is w/ EU Competition Committee. They’ll eventually find that FOM is abusing its monopoly position…

        1. @Joe Papp Now that is a thought that will keep me warm on long winter nights.

  9. Very interesting to read the story of Jan Magnussen’s career, a shame that he didn’t succeed but Kevin has everything in his favor, he’s more dedicated, he can learn from his dad’s mistakes and a big team like Mclaren can show him his weaknesses with the simulator etc, no excuses for him.

  10. That’s cute that Scarbs thinks he knows what the VMJ front looks like despite no one seeing it sans some FI folk, even the following F1F tweet.

    1. Well, @beejis60, most guys like him have already had some tips from team insiders as to what direction designs are taking (not to mention the very public mentions by boatloads of people), and a close look at the picture (and playing around with lighting in it) as done by @somersf1 on his blog does reveal that kind of shape for the nose that Scarbs drew for his tweet

      1. @bascb Ya, I understand that, but when he says “this is what it looks like” sort of sounds like that he knows for a fact. In reality, he doesn’t know for a fact unless he’s seen it and we all know he’s not seen it.

        1. As far as I know, he did indeed get told it would be this way and if you know that and then look at the picture, you can certainly see that shape Scarbs drew is the real nose.

  11. If the title is decided on the last double points race i’ll be rather disappointed..

  12. I start to think that one benefit for the double points final is that it will keep everybody focus on scoring big for the last race, I especially think about the mid-field cars, rather than “letting through” the title contenders.

    I know it’s not always true (as Petrov shown Alonso in 2010) but I always have the feeling that due to the pressure of the title, drivers are more careful and easy on title contenders on the last race.

  13. As King Julien once said to Private, here you are, talking, talking, talking and doing nothing, nothing, nothing.

    No team has defended the double points rule, yet they cannot stand up against Ecclestone and Abu Dhabi government and remove this bad joke from the rulebook. Instead of organising fans’ forums, perhaps they could, for once, listen to fans, particularly when they are so united on something?

    Everybody knows that the cars get uglier and uglier. If I put up a poster of a 2014 car on my bedroom wall, my family is going to throw me out of the house for such obscenity. Yet the teams haven’t managed to do anything about this and I want to hide under my bed when I think about how the 2018 cars are going to look like if the trend continues.

    Everybody wants F1 to be the pinnacle of motorsport, yet Glock, Di Resta and Kovalainen have been forced to leave the sport and their place has been taken by cash cows Gutierrez, Chilton and Ericsson, while Hulkenberg is still driving a midfield car and Webber has left F1 because he’s fed up with having to nurse his tyres.

    I’m actually not blaming the likes of Caterham but when are the big teams finally starting to act?

  14. I see what you did there with the picture @keithcollantine ;-)

  15. @Girts – spot on post there mate, gets my vote for comment of the day “for sure” !!

    I know the FIA are doing what they think is the best but personally I would like to see the cars widernagain, larger rear wings and a bit heav

  16. Sorry……… and a bit heavier. Cant hurt too much can it??

  17. In the PDF about Ecclestone’s case, you can read that the previous holding that owned F1, as well as Bambino Holdings are both based in the Jersey tax haven. What a joke, not surprising for this crook.

  18. I’m not that much against Mosley. After all, it was he, who pushed for the energy recovery systems and greener F1 in general – as much as I can remember – which resulted in this year’s potentially breakthrough regulations, relevant for manufacturers in engine formula, and leading the way in energy recovery innovation by placing the idea into the no-holds-barred development race of the F1 teams.

    1. @atticus-2, the same Mosely that wanted all teams to use the same motor supplied by Cosworth.

      “No holds barred development race” within the tightest ever restrictions on engine design and for less than 12 months.

      1. Nah, 12 months is just the first phase, full freeze would come later, so that point does not stand in full.

        Neither does the tightest ever restrictions on engine design – after all, it’s still looser than it was during the freeze.

        Yep, I agree with the first point, the man was a bit controversial, especially if we take into account what is in the round-up. Still, I just wanted to express an opinion that it’s not just black-and-white with him.

  19. I really don’t like how the guy writing about Michael is claiming things so brashly

  20. Nice balanced article on Ericsson there, I thought I remembered his name from a few years back, and was surprised to hear in the last couple of years that he was something of an also-ran. As they say, hopefully GP2 was a blip and he can fulfill his potential in F1, Kobayashi is a good yardstick for him.

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.