Massa expects Alonso to beat Raikkonen at Ferrari

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Fernando Alonso, Ferrari, Jerez, 2014In the round-up: Felipe Massa, who has been team mates to both Fernando Alonso and Kimi Raikkonen at Ferrari, believes Alonso will have the upper hand this year.

Links

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

Upbeat Massa tips ‘brainy’ Alonso to beat Raikkonen at Ferrari (James Allen on F1)

“He is very intelligent, he’s already worked out the new regulations and he knows what he needs to do to be quick straight away.”

Rosberg Pleased With Mercedes Mileage In Jerez (Speed)

“It’s a bit of a pity because the cars are slower, obviously we always prefer to go faster, so that’s not quite as nice.”

Mateschitz concerned by budget cap (Autosport)

“To enforce a budget cap you have to clearly state what is included and what not – what about marketing, drivers’ salaries etc? And what if you are a manufacturer and can hide several expenses in other budgets?”

Examining the new McLaren (Sky)

“With heads were being scratched in the Jerez paddock about the legality of McLaren’s design, it seems that rivals are preparing to cover all their bases just in case.”

Tweets

Comment of the day

One subject continues to dominate the off-season discussion:

Every season with any kind of double points scheme will need an asterisk placed next to it in the record books. At least it was fairly easy to compare previous seasons with different points systems because the same amount of points were awarded every race during a single season. It will be messy at best to make such comparisons in the future.

This does not need to be tried to know it is “stupid”.
@Bullmello

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Brawngp!

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

Virgin VR-01Virgin (now Marussia) became the first of 2010′s new teams to launch their F1 car on this day four years ago. However the VR-01, which was designed by Nick Wirth without the use of a wind tunnel, was later revealed to have a serious design flaw, as it couldn’t take on enough petrol to be driven competitively over a race distance at some tracks.

A revised version with a larger tank was eventually introduced but the team still finished last in the championship behind fellow newcomers Lotus (now Caterham) and HRT.

Image © Ferrari/Ercole Colombo

Advert | Go Ad-free

134 comments on Massa expects Alonso to beat Raikkonen at Ferrari

  1. Breno (@austus) said on 3rd February 2014, 0:17

    Sure, the budget cap would be difficult to enforce, especially with things like Red Bull Technology.

    • PhilEReid (@philereid) said on 3rd February 2014, 0:20

      @austus Could they not just say that all non standard parts (i.e. parts that all cars share), must all come from one company. So Red Bull couldn’t disguise a load of things as RB Technology, it all has to be in-house at Red Bull.
      I have no idea how it’d be enforced… Probably always open books maybe, made clear where all the money has gone to.

      • MaroonJack (@maroonjack) said on 3rd February 2014, 7:17

        It’s not that hard to define what constitutes conflict of interest. Many branches of industry and business somehow manage this and it shouldn’t be different for F1. Regulations regarding transparency would be the key here, but it’s definitely doable.

        • bertie (@bertie) said on 3rd February 2014, 9:09

          The only way this will work is if the companies are nearly constantly audited. However, looking at history it is pretty easy to fool them too. Either way i highly doubt any company on the grid wants that. Given the suspicious nature behind many of the sponsorship and other deals within F1. You just need to look at the state of easily taxes are “avoided” to know that this is unenforceable.

      • VMaxMuffin (@vmaxmuffin) said on 3rd February 2014, 8:13

        The problem is that a lot of the parts on cars are currently not made in house, and not made under some sort of “subsidiary company” either. The most obvious example is the engines – Only Ferrari and Mercedes make their own engines, the rest of the teams buy them. It would be unrealistic to start telling teams such as Red Bull or Force India, who have never made engines, to start making their own as they would fall way behind and probably cause their costs to rise too.

        There are more parts too – brakes, for example. I know Brembo and Carbon Industries are used, and I think Hitco as well. Not only do teams not want to have to start developing their own brakes, but also this can be great for the companies (“We made the brakes for the championship-winning Red Bulls of the last 4 years!”) although I’m not sure if they actually do at the moment.

        There are probably other parts throughout the cars that are also made elsewhere, though I couldn’t say for sure. One solution is to standardise these sorts of parts, but then I think that would be bad for F1, plus different suppliers’ products might suit different teams or drivers. I believe that Mercedes ran different brakes for Rosberg and Hamilton last year (or maybe it was Hamilton and Button at McLaren the year before, I can’t remember) because each driver preferred the different brakes – some stop harder, some have more/less “feel”, some are easier to operate (over a 1.5-2 hour race, this is a big consideration).

        So as much as I am in favour of a cost cap, I don’t think it’s at all realistic.

        • rsp123 (@rsp123) said on 3rd February 2014, 11:23

          Perhaps the way to do the cost cap is to require the teams to buy in everything on the car from external suppliers, save the tub and aero panels and a few other (cheap) bits. The accounting would then be much simpler. Better still, there would be no need to mandate a single supplier – never a good solution.

          Teams should also have a maximum headcount at races – the cost of extra trucks, catering, motorhomes, hotels, and all the rest must be enormous. What would be a reasonable number? 25?

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 3rd February 2014, 6:39

      F1 is highly dependent on technology and research. Therefore, it’s almost impossible to enforce budget caps unless they employ NSA.

      A team seeking glory and dependent on car development will spend all the money they have (or even the money they don’t have) to beat the rest. If they want to drive costs down, it has to be achieved via regulations.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 3rd February 2014, 7:06

      Actually I think Mateschitz raising this point now is a very positive sign. Because those are indeed questions that need solving before anything can get settled.
      To define what the budget includes, what it doesn’t and how internal cost from mother/sister companies will be treated vs. buying things externally. For me it means that he is willing to discuss things, and provided he gets reasonable answers (yes, that does include also defining cost allocation for RB Technology), there might actually be a chance on this going to get worked out and put into reality of sorts

    • petebaldwin (@petebaldwin) said on 3rd February 2014, 10:33

      It would be hugely difficult to monitor a budget cap.

      Let’s look at the example of engines. Red Bull obviously pay Renault more than Caterham and therefore, get preferential treatment. Because of this, you’d have to include engine costs in the budget. So what about engine manufacturers like Mercedes? How does that come from their budget? If you say that Mercedes effectively have to buy their engines, what is stopping them for selling themselves their own engines for £1?

      Do you charge the F1 team for manufacturing their own engines? Surely that’s unfair as Renault aren’t being charged for making Red Bull’s engines…

      I’m sure there is a way that it can be done but you’ll always end up with people feeling cheated and because you need everyone to agree to this for it to work, it’s not going to happen.

      On top of all of this, it seems odd to bang on about how it’s wrong that F1 is slower than last year and how it should be the pinnacle of motorsport and then say that teams need to spend less which will mean that the best teams become slower..

      • Timothy Katz (@timothykatz) said on 3rd February 2014, 11:04

        I don’t disagree with you at all, but I don’t quite understand this bit “Red Bull obviously pay Renault more than Caterham”. How so, and why is it obvious?

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 3rd February 2014, 11:35

        @petebaldwin I don’t think I can agree with your view there.

        First of all this

        Red Bull obviously pay Renault more than Caterham and therefore, get preferential treatment.

        is wrong. Red Bull do not pay, instead its Infinity being happy to pay the bill to be seen on their championship winning car. They are treated preferentially because they have shown in the last couple of years that its a good bet to be in their camp. And Renault wants to be there.

        As for charging money for engines – this is the simplest matter. In the last couple of years there was even a fixed, agreed upon, price for the egine. The only thing that stands in the way of repeating this is teams not agreeing upon it nor FIA being able or willing to enforce it. The same is true of gearboxes, hours of work, infrastructure etc.

        If you look closely at how international accounting works (with governments always interested to see how much is payed out of their jurisdiction) a large part of it is about coming up with internal pricing to determine what value was created where.

        • petebaldwin (@petebaldwin) said on 3rd February 2014, 11:48

          Fair enough – wasn’t aware of that however that only highlights another problem with a potential budget cap! So now teams can get sponsors to pay for their engines so they aren’t included in the budget? How about if your owner also owns another company (ie an Airline…) Can the airline pay for your engines? Seems a nice conveinant way to hide costs.

          The issue with engines isn’t so much the exact cost for them but the difference between manufacturers and other teams. Would Mercedes have to pay the set amount to buy an engine? Seems odd that Mercedes would have to buy an engine from themselves but not Red Bull from Renault…. If not, how much of the cost of manufacturing the engine would come from their budget? If none, what is stopping them setting up their engines getting everything ready in the engine department before handing it over to the team ready to go? If this is the case, a budget cap would simply hand a huge advantage to the manufacturers.

          I’m sure this would be easy to monitor given the full co-operation of the teams but in a “do everything and anything to win” environment, I’m not sure how much co-operation they’d get!

        • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 3rd February 2014, 12:33

          @bascb the problem with this is that you may end up running into antitrust problems to do with price fixing. With gearboxes you also have the problem that some teams make their own, like Red Bull and Williams, whereas others buy them. Some buy them from other teams. So it’s hard to see how you could standardise the cost. This is where a subsidiary company becomes the only viable option – Red Bull Technologies then invest to create the technical solution, and then sell it to Red Bull Racing. But not everyone works this way. This is the problem – people haven’t created subsidiaries as a means to evade budget caps, but rather because it was the best, most logical business model for them to use. In order to put in an effective budget cap, then you may need certain teams to basically restructure their entire businesses. Which is where you might see a few test cases brought into the European courts on the grounds of antitrust violations.

          Better simply to relax homologation rules and allow teams to source a lot of standard parts themselves, in a way which saves them money.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 3rd February 2014, 12:43

            The engine prices have been fixed for the past couple of years already as part of the RRA @mazdachris, so I do not think that it would be a legal problem to do so once more.

            Off course the cost should be based on a realistic basis. It really is no problem to use internal prices for things though. I have done that in accounting and in internal cost reviews, for benchmarking purposes or simply to compare one part of business with another. There is no technical problem with this. Sourcing parts elsewhere does not really change things, because you still have to make an estimate for total cost combining those at the supplier with those at the plant.

            The only real problem is that we still need the parties to agree. And then to not cheat overly much. Not a thing the teams have been great at. So unless it has draconical penalties involved (almost doping rules like) and the FIA is able to police it, its hard to see it working in practice.

          • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 3rd February 2014, 13:00

            The antitrust issue over the engines is still very real, it just has never been tested since all parties are (currently) happy with the setup. It also works, just about, for the engines since the engine manufacturers are effectively all third party companies so are all just selling a standard product to a customer. But with some things which are developed and manufactured by teams for their own use, but then sold to other teams, that setup can’t work under a standardized financial model. Unless you simply set the customer cost at exactly the same as the cost of development, but then that’s going to end up costing customers more, not less. If you open some things up to third parties however, then you get economies of scale. Things like steering, suspension, and brake components, all could just be off-the-shelf parts and nobody would really see a difference, except those counting the pennies.

            Even here though you’ll have problems. Since sponsorship deals may differ from one team to another, and you may have to do away with technical partnerships. It’s such a massive headache to try and look at literally everything the teams are spending on, and finding a one-size-fits-all solution which is fit for purpose and crucially cheap enough to be able to drive down costs.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 3rd February 2014, 13:15

            I do agree with you that for F1 to lower the cost of participation, its a viable route to look into more standard parts, single sourced or just single design with a form of e-auction for companies to apply as suppliers.

            Not necissarily the brakes, as those are pretty directly tied into how the cars drive. But the way the side impact thing was done surely is a way forward. Its based on innovative thinking of a team, further developed with the technical clout and resources of other teams and now single sourced to have simpler procedures, less crash testing and a lower cost.
            Parts like the pedals, steering columns, and possibly a whole lot of other parts (what about pitstop equipment, for example, or garage interiors, etc.) could be done like that to allow teams to concentrate on the parts that do make their cars unique. Off course more rule stability would be the starting point, as that is the easiest way to get economics of scale working.

            A budget cap does not lower cost as such (in theory it could be set at something between 100-200 million, meaning only a few teams would even notice), its a sort of mechanism to push teams towards looking for things they can do cheaper

          • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 3rd February 2014, 13:36

            It needs to be a two part thing though doesn’t it. The budget cap has to be, realistically, lower than the current spend of the richest teams. But secondly it must be fair to everyone. Because currently there is a lot of diversity as to how parts are sourced and costed, it may affect different teams differently. After all, the more successful a team, the more they will get in sponsorship, and effectively the less they will need to spend on things. Just implementing an upper threshold cost cap is meaningless since it’s not the biggest, richest teams who are struggling, it’s the ones at the back. All you do is compromise the ones who are already solvent, while those down the pecking order will still have all the same problems as before. So I do agree that it’s a far more important thing to make F1 fundamentally cheaper, while also doing whatever they can to make sure that sponsors actually want to be involved. Otherwise why would Marussia care if Ferrari are spending £10m less a year? In fact, it may compromise them even further as it may cause Ferrari to have to reconsider their technical partnership, further harming Marussia’s ability to raise itself up the ranks.

            Basically, telling the rich people to spend less does not make the poor people any less poor.

  2. Ciaran (@ciaran) said on 3rd February 2014, 0:17

    Alonso vs Raikkonen is going to be so interesting whatever the outcome. But I agree with Felipe that Fernando probably has a small advantage over Kimi – the fact that Alonso seems to be able to get the team to rally around him could also be an interesting factor.

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 3rd February 2014, 6:22

      Me too. On paper, I can’t see Kimi beating Fernando.

    • dimitris said on 3rd February 2014, 7:04

      As for “Alonso getting the team behind him”, well, my understanding is that the team was fed up with Alonso’s criticism and his attitude of blaming everyone else but himself. They will welcome a new and fresh aproach to developing the car from someone who is, as everyone says, extremely accurate and consice in his fedback and does not complain or blame others. Ferrari have, with Felippe and Alonso, lost the development race in previous seasons and for this reason I think James Allison will listen very carefully to what Kimi has to say about developing the car.

      • Neel Jani (@neelv27) said on 3rd February 2014, 8:17

        the team was fed up with Alonso’s criticism and his attitude of blaming everyone else but himself

        For sure Alonso can’t take the blame for title losses in 2010 and 2012.

        • craig-o (@craig-o) said on 3rd February 2014, 8:42

          @neelv27 you could say that about 2012, although I felt him qualifying out of position a few times didn’t help but in 2010 he made several mistakes early on which cost him dear. This balanced out a strong second half to the season where by that time he was clearly the number 1, while the McLaren and Red Bull had their drivers taking points off each other.

          • Neel Jani (@neelv27) said on 3rd February 2014, 9:02

            @craig-o

            In 2010, Alonso had a mediocre first due to various reasons:

            Baharain – He won (inherited from Seb)
            Australia – Was taken out by Button at the 1st corner
            Malaysia – Gerabox failure which lead to Engine troubles as well
            China – Bad race
            Spain – A lucky 2nd with Seb and Lewis’ problems
            Monaco – Crashing in P3 was his own fault
            Canada – Lost a 2nd place due to a backmarker holding him
            Valencia – Lost out due to safety car but Lewis got lucky
            Belgium – His own fault

            According to me, the Red Bull and McLaren drivers took points off each other more in the first half than second half

            Till British GP:
            Red Bull: Seb – 5, Mark – 5

            Post British GP:
            Red Bull: Seb – 7, Mark – 2

            The above stats shows that in the 2nd half drivers weren’t really taking points off each other while it was true in the 1st half.

            No doubt, Alonso goofed just like many contenders in 2010 but the final nail in the coffin was from the team in Abu Dhabi.

          • gogogoalex (@gogogoalex) said on 3rd February 2014, 11:43

            Good summary to the mistakes of Alonso, the perfect driver, dont know from which countries u are, or what press u usually read, but here in Spain, from the beginning of his f1 career they just change all his errors to bad luck things or just car failures… From the beginning of his career in Minardi, thats why so much people hate him in Spain. In 2010 he had lot of errors, at least in the first races, where he had the best car by far, with the easy double in Bahrain the spanish press thought they will beat Ferrari 2004 season records, they were celebrating the title like crazy, just only after one race of the season, and they began compare him to Schumacher work and successs and say that Raikkonen was a good driver, but not with the mentality of a team like Ferrari, which is just rubbish. Santander bank payed the firing of Raikkonen and 5 years more late they have to “buy” him again.
            The point is that in 2010 they blame the team for the “abudhabazo” lost of title. When the thing was several mistakes not only by the team:
            1) The team, bad strategy put Alonso in a lost of title position, nobody denies that. But if Ferrari do that is because they understimate Vettel, they never thought Vettel was the “real deal” and they just take a look at Webbers all time. Alonso too, in all press conferences, in all partial results, he only speak about Webber position and his position, never took in account to Vettel the “real deal”. And that arrogance cost him half title. I dont know if he asked for pit as same time as Webber but who knows if that was the case, because Alonso only was looking to Webber position and not taking care of Vettel. When the qualifying finish, which he got a bad position in the grid, he was fully happy because Webber was behind, thats gives u what he thought of Vettel… That arrogance lead him to a difficult position on track after first stop.
            2) He had enough laps to recover and win the title, he had lot lot of laps, but his overtaking ability which never had been great, cost him the title, he is a driver that takes very very few risks, he just take car home, and overtakes in boxes, that lack of risk and conservative actittude make him not even try to overtake Petrov, which is really really really stupid, and cost him the title. “Use the best of your ability to recover…” He become the laugh during long time that phrase.
            3) I compare that situation of 2010 in abudhabi and 2012 brazil situation as an “exam” to demonstrate if the driver deserved that title or not. It was a similar situation and Alonso failed the exam miserably and Vettel pass the exam and got the title. I think was a real exam and give u who deserved that title more, so nobody can complain about the team or whatever, because that was the real exam, and the real proof to demonstrate if that driver deserved the title or not, and the answer was NO, he just was in contention for the title because of lack of reliability of other teams, or just good luck, abudhabi exam gave u the answer.
            4) About Alonso and Raikkonen comparison: well in this thing Alonso has team advantage and politics advantage, which makes him be in better position before the start of the championship. He has the sponsorship of Santander, which make him the preferential driver during Alonso-Massa time, and make Raikkonen out of the team, because Santander has no interest in Finish market, and has huge interest in Brazil market, where is a emergence economy and Santander has a lot of business in Brazil, thats why they retained Massa 5 years ago, and fired Raikkonen. Its sarcastic that they have to get Raikkonen 5 years more late and admiting the huge mistake of kicking Raikkonen. Also in this politics not only the sponsorship which i think owns half Ferrari, or owns full Ferrari, i think they have a loan mortage with Santander lol and that cost him Ferrari a lot of wins. Anyway other important factor its that Montezemolo said from the beginning Alonso is first driver and Raikkonen the second, and we all know that Montezemolo hates Raikkonen, and the only reason why Raikkonen is in Ferrari, its because Stefano Dominicalli brought him back, after serious doubts about Alonso performance during this years, he want a second option, so if Alonso makes several mistakes like for example last year in first races (Malaysia, Bahrain), he dont get without championship options soon because he will have Raikkonen, and at the end of the day Dominicalli knows that if in 2014, no championships are won, he is out of Ferrari, thats why he brought back Raikkonen the only driver that got a title with Ferrari in las 10 years!

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 3rd February 2014, 12:14

            Australia – Was taken out by Button at the 1st corner

            *turned in on Button going into the first corner

        • quads said on 6th February 2014, 13:51

          …and for sure, Ferrari cannot take credit for providing a package capable of what ALO achieved those two years – Hence ALO overachieved and Ferrari did (and continued to) underachieve…yet ALO continued to state “I am in the best team on the grid”. Yet you will see a few people here, with short memory, let current emotions talk instead of facts.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 3rd February 2014, 7:08

      Indeed, and as Massa has raced with both of these guys at Ferrari, he should be able to tell what might be the thing that helps one of them beat the other.
      My guess is that there won’t be much between them, but its certainly going to be one of the things to look forward to developing during the year.

    • Matthijs (@matthijs) said on 3rd February 2014, 8:09

      I think Massa is a very sensitive guy and Alonso walking over him trashed Felipes self esteem. That will not happen with Kimi, so there will be quite a few clashes between the two. Apart from that, I think that Alonso is a more complete driver of the two and therefore will have more points at the end.

    • petebaldwin (@petebaldwin) said on 3rd February 2014, 10:37

      @ciaran – I expect Alonso to be faster than Kimi however I expect it to be very close by the end of the Championship. Kimi is great getting through 3/4 of the race un-noticed and then suddenly popping up on the podium.

      I would be very surprised if Alonso was more than race win away (in terms of points) from Kimi at the end of the year.

      • Neel Jani (@neelv27) said on 3rd February 2014, 10:51

        Let’s not forget that reliability will play perhaps the biggest role in the destiny of these 2 champions.

      • eskopeso said on 3rd February 2014, 16:22

        Ferrari always seems to start using the #1 and #2 driver thing later in the season, so the difference in the end of the season might be a bit bigger than that whichever way it goes.

        Whether Alonso and Kimi will play ball regarding team orders while they still have a mathematical possibility to win is another question.

    • Nathan (@il-ferrarista) said on 3rd February 2014, 23:42

      Fernando doesn’t just have a small advantage – I certainly reckon his advantage over mr. Räikkönen is quite huge… But that’s just my honest opinion.

  3. spoutnik (@spoutnik) said on 3rd February 2014, 0:33

    COTD is so true :(
    I seriously cannot understand how they can even think about such a poor decision.

    • Mackeine Loveine (@cocaine-mackeine) said on 3rd February 2014, 0:40

      Because F1 has fallen soooooo down, that they are “trying” to levitate up things by using stupid decisions.

    • mantresx (@mantresx) said on 3rd February 2014, 3:28

      While I also agree with the COTD, I recently realised that a lot of the COTDs are about something negative or complaining in one way or another.
      I say it because it caught my attention this time but maybe I’m wrong, it’s just an opinion.

    • Stjuuv (@stjuuv) said on 3rd February 2014, 7:56

      While the decision is poor, it has nothing to do with the reason COTD seems to dislike it. I mean come on, the number of point-scoring finishers has been changed several times over the years, and nobody has any problems comparing different eras with hardly an asterisk in sight, even though the strategies of races change drastically when you increase or decrease the number of finishers that get points. Now with the double points scheme, it wouldn’t change the number of drivers getting points, it wouldn’t change the points ratios of different finishing positions – the easiest thing to do for the history books, is to treat the final race as 2 consecutive races with identical outcomes, and nothing else changes.

      Using these kind of made-up reasons for explaining why the double-points finale is bad, is actually giving credit to the idea, by making it easier to defend.

      • bull mello (@bullmello) said on 3rd February 2014, 21:42

        @stjuuv – There are many reasons to not like the double points scheme. The main reason being that F1 need not resort to such gimmickry, the sport is above that. Also, that having one race with extra points thereby devalues all the other races. Those two reasons have been cited many times by myself and many others, probably by you too. Those are reasons enough, really.

        But, the longer this nonsense goes on, the more reasons there are to point out how ridiculous it is. My point here was merely an afterthought compared to the primary reasons. I’m not a total stats guy, but when looking at stats the less confusing or convoluted the comparisons are mathematically, usually the more valid they are. Right now it is easy to apply one season to another comparing the old points awards to the new or vice-versa. Not so clear cut going forward as your example demonstrates:

        the easiest thing to do for the history books, is to treat the final race as 2 consecutive races with identical outcomes, and nothing else changes.

        Except, it is not two consecutive races, it is only one race. There is no easy way to make this work statistically without skewing something. That was my point and the only way to avoid it is by not having double points in any race!

        • Stjuuv (@stjuuv) said on 3rd February 2014, 22:54

          And my point is, your statistics get skewed every time the points system changes, and usually way more than in the current case. Your argument works well against changing the points system in general, not only against this specific case.

          Why the heck would you apply a points scoring system from one era to another, and be happy with it, while it is clear to everyone, that the strategies, drivers’ motivations and race results would have been completely different, had the points been distributed differently, and had the drivers acted accordingly. And then you say that the double points are whats really going to skew the statistics? As I said, it’s a silly argument, and if anything, it’s harming the “fight” against double points.

          • bull mello (@bullmello) said on 4th February 2014, 0:50

            @stjuuv

            As I said, it’s a silly argument, and if anything, it’s harming the “fight” against double points.

            How could that be possible?


            2013 WDC and WCC points scored.
            (no asterisk, all races have equal points scoring values)

            2014 WDC* and WCC* points scored.
            * Double points awarded in last race only. All other races points awarded at 2013 levels.

            2015 WDC** and WCC** points scored.
            ** Double points awarded in three different races. All other races points awarded at 2013 levels.
            (note, not currently in the regs yet, but Bernie wants it)

            I do not want to see this in F1 record books.

            Pretty sure we’re on the same side, no double points.

          • Stjuuv (@stjuuv) said on 4th February 2014, 1:10

            How could that be possible?

            95% of the people who watch F1 on TV have never even seen a record book, much less read one. They have, however, seen titles being handed over before the last race, making that race pretty much meaningless for a large part of the audience who don’t care about power struggles at the back end of the grid. If your problem with double points is how the record books will look like, your problem is meaningless, compared to the problem the double points are trying to solve.

            There you go. Criticize double points where criticism is due, instead of making up bad arguments. Your record book is already full of asterisks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_World_Championship_points_scoring_systems

          • bull mello (@bullmello) said on 4th February 2014, 1:54

            @stjuuv

            95% of the people who watch F1 on TV have never even seen a record book, much less read one. They have, however, seen titles being handed over before the last race, making that race pretty much meaningless for a large part of the audience who don’t care about power struggles at the back end of the grid. If your problem with double points is how the record books will look like, your problem is meaningless, compared to the problem the double points are trying to solve.

            So, you’re for double points?

          • Stjuuv (@stjuuv) said on 4th February 2014, 2:01

            No, I am against double points, but what I’m saying is, is that if the argument against double points is “record books will need an asterisk”, there is virtually no argument against double points. Putting any emphasis on this “asterisk” nonsense is going to end up working for the double points.

            There are plenty good arguments against double points, so use those arguments, instead of dreaming up new ones.

          • bull mello (@bullmello) said on 4th February 2014, 2:27

            @stjuuv

            Putting any emphasis on this “asterisk” nonsense is going to end up working for the double points.

            Oh, that’s just silly! I’ve asked a couple of times how that’s possible and you haven’t really given a reason yet. Wish I had such powers though. First thing I would do is make double points go away. ;-)

            There are plenty good arguments against double points, so use those arguments, instead of dreaming up new ones.

            Actually, I mentioned some of those in this same discussion, you may have missed it. Anyways, this little debate was somewhat amusing, but I must go now. Cheers. :-)

    • @cocaine-mackeine I am sure people created a similar hullaballoo when it was decided that points would be given to Top 10 finishers instead of Top 6. If we are able to live with that, why can’t we live with this.

      We have to have a constructive debate around this because tomorrow we might have a situation where points are awarded to all those who finish a race.

      • petebaldwin (@petebaldwin) said on 3rd February 2014, 10:43

        @noob – Points for the top 10 instead of the top 6 simply allow teams who finish in the midfield the oppertunity to differenciate themselves. In this era (up until now anyway!) where there is next to no unreliability, teams like Sauber, Williams, Toro Rosso and Force India would usually decide their finishing positions based on lucky races where weather or retirements lucked them into a 6th position finish. Winning a race is still worth that much more that is works as it should

        If they could get it right, I’d be happy for all finishers to score points as it’s bring Caterham & Marussia into the Championship rather than the stupid “whoever gets the highest finish” rule now which is down 100% to luck.

        Double points isn’t the same thing. It’s devaluing the other races in order to artificially make the championship more “exciting”. There is nothing artificial about the top 10 scoring points but there is about double points for a standard race.

      • matt90 (@matt90) said on 3rd February 2014, 12:20

        I am sure people created a similar hullaballoo when it was decided that points would be given to Top 10 finishers instead of Top 6.

        No. Largely because they aren’t even vaguely similar situations, besides them both involving points.

  4. Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 3rd February 2014, 0:54

    I’m with Massa here. I think Alonso will own Kimi all year.

  5. Pakkalo said on 3rd February 2014, 1:01

    Double points at the last GP… Would that stop teams from shifting extra resources to the following year’s design, and force everyone to keep developing current cars all the way to the finale (except an eventual early champion)?
    I think this makes each season more expensive for all the teams, and might cost F1 dearly: imagine Caterham/Marussia begging its investors for a final race budget push, then coming out of the race without points…

  6. MrGuy037 (@mrguy037) said on 3rd February 2014, 1:51

    Maybe this shouldn’t be said, but if they really wanted to keep the battle going until the last race, all they would have to do is to double the points awarded at each race. It would be mathematically impossible for the driver’s title to be decided before the last race. Of course, it would render the championship a farce, but if they’re so serious about keeping the title running, what’s with the half-measures?

    • @mrguy037 you mean double the points awarded after every event, something like 25 to 50 to 100 points by race 3 and so forth. If that was made winning the last race alone would match the total point count of all the previous races.

      • Yappy said on 3rd February 2014, 3:18

        What has not be discusses yet, is the fact that teams have to pay for each point that they get. Kind of like being fined for being successful. So while fanatics are questioning the rule, management are most likely rubbing their hands with the idea of buying ivory backscratcher’s in bulk.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 3rd February 2014, 4:35

      Yes, the gamblers gambit.

    • @mrguy037 Why not also introduce negative points for alternate finishers like first would get +25, second -10, third +10 and so on…

      Let’s all come out with such wacky ideas..

  7. karter22 (@karter22) said on 3rd February 2014, 3:24

    If Mercedes´ power unit lives up to it´s hype, it is going to be a all MERC/FERRARI showdown. I doubt Renault will get their act together in time to battle till the end.

    KIMI will rule over ALO on saturdays but ALO will own him on SUNDAYs!

    • Kingshark (@kingshark) said on 3rd February 2014, 6:50

      @karter22

      KIMI will rule over ALO on saturdays

      Kimi’s qualifying record against Romain was worse than Fernando’s against Felipe.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 3rd February 2014, 7:10

      I don’t think we can discount Red Bull hitting the sweetspot on their car and engine just yet @karter22

      • Juzh (@juzh) said on 3rd February 2014, 9:08

        Red bull may hit it, but it’s not just up to them. Renault has to sort themselves out too.

      • karter22 (@karter22) said on 4th February 2014, 4:14

        @bascb
        The thing is that it isn´t only up to redbull… heck, it´s not their problem actually. Renault has to step up their game! Sure Newey is partially to blame but one would think that Renault would have talked to newey while designing the car to see what the packaging would be like! That´s why MERC and Ferrari nailed it! They produce their own chassis and engine, they don´t need to get together with the engine supplier to figure stuff out. I see RBR having a hard time for half a season.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 4th February 2014, 6:37

          I think you are wrong there @karter22, in regards to Red Bulls extreme case.
          On the one hand we know that Renault do have a problem, they were rumoured to have one even a month before testing (not just Lotus wanted testing postponed), and its clear that none of the Renault powered cars could have a lap were they ran at anything close to full power.
          On the other hand however, we saw that the team taking less of an extreme path to their cooling solutions was able to run far more than the teams that were being “cleverer” with it (and Caterham can now start to slim down the car with what they learned). Not to mention that the Red Bull was almost as late coming through the crash tests as the McLaren. Therefore I think its safe to say that a big portion of the work that needs done is in the Red Bull teams themselves as well as better listening to worries Renault has over their extreme solutions and the engine supplier getting their software working to be able to use ERS and the batteries

    • If Mercedes´ power unit lives up to it´s hype, it is going to be a all MERC/FERRARI showdown

      @karter22 For the tyre eating Mercs it would be difficult, Ferrari have the better chance… good engines + easy on the tyres

      • Chris (@tophercheese21) said on 3rd February 2014, 10:43

        The Mercedes isn’t necessarily going to be tough on it’s tyres. Sure, that was from 2011-2013. But with new aero regulations meaning they’ve been able to go to the drawing board and dial out any aero problems that cause tyre wear. That combined with harder tyres I doubt many teams will struggle with tyres at all this year.

        It’s going to be Mercedes, Ferrari and most probably Red Bull as well fighting for the top three places.

      • karter22 (@karter22) said on 4th February 2014, 4:18

        @noob
        The one thing I love of this preseason so far is that nobody is talking about the tyres so far. The cars are so different that for all we know, MERC might have solved their tyre problem. This season is going to be all about the engines! Which in my opinion is great!

        @tophercheese21
        Not sure about RBR… Renault have to get their act together first and Newey might have to redesign the whole R-B-TEN just to save face! I see RBR having the kind of season Ferrari had in 2005!

    • Nathan (@il-ferrarista) said on 4th February 2014, 0:23

      Räikkönen _was_ slightly faster than Alonso on saturdays during his Mclaren stint, but has lost a lot of his former qualifying speed. Imo, Alonso will prevail there too, notably to some extent and certainly not by many tenths of a sec.

  8. obviously said on 3rd February 2014, 4:16

    I think it’s, if not unfounded, then largely exaggerated view, that Alonso is not as fast in qualifying. First of all, quali isn’t what it used to be from the moment they introduced parc ferme back in 2003. Even when you take the fuel out of it, there’s still setup which stays the same, so there will always be some compromises. Secondly, Ferrari was inherently slow on a single lap for years now, but any time Alonso had an opportunity to take a pole, he took it. That said, he wasn’t perfect in every single quali session he ever did in Ferrari, but in realistic percentage, it’s not like he was underperforming in quali.

  9. Todd (@braketurnaccelerate) said on 3rd February 2014, 4:21

    Massa, as a fan of yours that’s stuck by you even through these last 4.5 years of winless seasons, please be quite and stop talking about Alonso & Ferrari…. I cannot understand why you still support the driver that basically ruined your career.

    • Todd (@braketurnaccelerate) said on 3rd February 2014, 4:29

      Also, as long as the fight between Kimi & Alonso isn’t handicapped by Ferrari themselves, I think Kimi will come out well ahead.

      • Todfod (@todfod) said on 3rd February 2014, 7:07

        Also, as long as the fight between Kimi & Alonso isn’t handicapped by Ferrari themselves

        Well.. looks like you have a ready made excuse for when Kimi doesn’t come out on top

    • Joshua Mesh (@joshua-mesh) said on 3rd February 2014, 6:20

      He admires and respects Alonso because he recognizes Alonso’s genius. If you had any experience in playing a sport and thus had a rival in your own team, you’d know how what its like to respect your enemy.

    • DC (@dc) said on 3rd February 2014, 6:35

      Massa talks about Alonso and Ferrari because that is what reporters ask him about. We shouldn’t blame him for trying to engage with the press and honestly answering their questions.

    • MaroonJack (@maroonjack) said on 3rd February 2014, 7:12

      He tries to elevate Alonso precisely because he was beaten by him. This way, he wasn’t just defeated by another racing driver, he was defeated by a demigod and there is no shame in that.

    • @braketurnaccelerate : Maybe Alonso know some dark secret of Massa

    • @braketurnaccelerate if alo ruined massa’s career by beating him convincingly every year?, then i agree. But lets be honest, Kimi couldn’t psychologically manage when Massa beat him in ’08 n ’09, Kimi was so-so with grosjean in second half of last season, I am fan of both Alo and kimi in that order, its treat to me that both are driving for ferrari, but i don’t see kimi beating alonso over a season, just too much.

      • Kimi4WDC said on 3rd February 2014, 23:04

        He doesn’t have to beat him over a season. Neither did Massa beat Kimi over the season.

        2008 was very unusual, Ferrari decided to back up one driver very early on, now no one knows what triggered that decision but combination of bad calls and some unlucky incidents gave Massa upper hand.

        Same this year, if by 5-6th race either Kimi or Alonso have two DNFs while other is doing great you can expect Ferrari to call it quit for equal treatment, thats how they always done it.

  10. HoHum (@hohum) said on 3rd February 2014, 4:49

    Smart of McLaren to show their trick rear end early and get it ruled upon before the 1st. race, I wonder what possibly even more effective design they might have lurking in the background while everybody else is concentrating on designing wishbone spoilers.

  11. Swindle94 (@swindle94) said on 3rd February 2014, 5:34

    as a Kimi fan, all i ask for is a fair fight with little to no politicking within the team. I honestly don’t know how it will turn out since they are both good, but not great at qualifying, yet they are both the class of the field on Sundays. Even if one team runs away with the championship, the Ferrari battle will keep me tuned in all season.

  12. obviously said on 3rd February 2014, 5:34

    Regarding COTD, as I wrote two days ago, F1 is taking everything to the absurdity.

    First they come up with an absolutely idiotic idea, that needs no trying or proofing, since it addresses a nonexistent problem via in a way that has no place in F1 in the first place.
    Then they keep overanalyzing it, overthinking it and keep repeating it to the point of absurdity, where they all get so used to hearing it and get so caught up in it, as if it has always been an integral part of F1 that now just needs tweaking, or that it’s a problem that has always been there and now needs a solution.

    While the truth is, they should just take a step back and realize that the idea is just as stupid as when it was first mentioned and that it isn’t some integral part of the sport that has always been there and now needs fixing or tweaking, but just an idiotic flavor of the month that can be throw away in the can, just like Bernie’s crooked ass.

    In essence, it’s simple. Invent a problem and put a band-aid on it. Then keep piling on bandages until you forget and can’t see anymore what the underlying problem is, that this fix is supposed to remedy, when the truth is, there was no real problem to begin.

  13. JCost (@jcost) said on 3rd February 2014, 7:08

    When I started watching F1 in early 1990s it was all about Williams and McLaren. It took a while until Michael Schumacher, supported by Byrne, Todt and Brawn, made me realize how big Ferrari was.

    The Williams of Mansel, Hill or Villeneuve was nowhere to be seen in the last 10 years and newcomers to the sport may not completely understand how important Frank Williams team has been to F1, just like new comers of 1990s didn’t fully understood Ferrari’s magnitude. However, I feel that Williams will put a very interesting season and will shine in the years to come and justice be do to its legacy.

    They have a new sponsor, talented engineers, Mercedes power unit, a happy Felipe Massa and a promising young driver, so that’s a good mix for success. Good luck to Claire and her team.

  14. Lotus Fan said on 3rd February 2014, 7:43

    Just for fun.

    2014 is the year of the Horse; therefore, the Prancing Horse (Ferrari) will be the constructors champions.

    In addition, the sum of 2014 is 7; therefore, Raikkonen will win the drivers title.

    Maches perfectly

  15. WilliamB (@william-brierty) said on 3rd February 2014, 8:10

    Massa expects Alonso to beat Raikkonen at Ferrari

    …as does everyone else.

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.