No fault with Vettel’s chassis, Red Bull say

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Sebastian Vettel, Red Bull, Circuit de Catalunya, 2014In the round-up: Red Bull deny reports claiming Sebastian Vettel’s original RB10 chassis was damaged.

Links

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

Red Bull say Vettel’s chassis not distorted (Reuters)

Media reports in Germany suggested the previous chassis, while supposedly no different to the replacement that was used in pre-season testing, was crooked but the team said there was no evidence of that.

Monaco a chance to beat Merc – Vettel (ESPN)

“Asked if Red Bull would be able to compete with Mercedes in Monaco, Vettel said: ‘I think yes. It is difficult to predict but maybe at Monaco you need a little bit less power.'”

Cross-examination delay of key witness in F1 chief’s bribery trial (FT, registration required)

“Peter Noll, the German judge presiding over Formula One chief Bernie Ecclestone’s trial on bribery charges, decided on Wednesday to delay the defence attorney’s cross-examination of the prosecution’s star witness for two-and-a-half months.”

Todt: F1 noise row will be over soon (Autosport)

“In a few months’ time, nobody will speak any more about the noise. We will have found something else.”

Renault backing search for engine noise solution (Adam Cooper’s F1 Blog)

Rob White: “But of course the Strategy Group has identified the need to try and so something to improve the perception of the noise, and that’s what everybody is currently working on. The next steps, we’ve got work at the factory, we’ve got work with our various teams underway.”

Susie Wolff of Williams Wolff ready for British GP outing (BBC)

“I didn’t look at the timesheets. I had my own personal targets that I was set by the team. They had their expectations of what I should achieve on each tyre set and that was my goal.”

Ex-F1 Tech-Guy Will Put Your LMP1 Car on The Grid of Le Mans 24 (Gabor Vajda)

“They are pushing towards a similar philosophy, which now is controlling engine power through fuel consumption – as opposed to restrictors, like in the past. So there is convergence between F1 and LMP1 cars at the moment, which is a good thing, because we need to standardise a bit, we need to get the philosophy across the different racing series.”

33 Days Trailer (Aikon Media and Technology via Vimeo)

http://vimeo.com/92439221

Tweets

Snapshot

David Purley, Lec CRP1, 1977

The Lec CRP1, raced by David Purley in 1977, will run for the first time in 35 years at this year’s Goodwood Festival of Speed, which takes place from June 26th to 29th.

Purley led the Belgian Grand Prix with the car in 1977. Before that he gained recognition and great credit for his bravery when he tried to overturn the burning car Roger Williamson was trapped in during the 1973 Dutch Grand Prix. Had any of the onlookers bothered to help Purley, Williamson might have survived.

Purley survived a massive crash of his own during practice for the British Grand Prix in 1977. He returned to racing competition in the British Formula One championship two years later. However six years later he lost his life in a plane crash.

Comment of the day

Mercedes deemed their amplifying exhaust a failure but some feel the idea was doomed from the start:

The sound is a huge part of the excitement of motorsports. The Matra V12 from Le Mans, the Quattros, or the Volvo S40 in BTCC. It’s pure joy to hear those.

But I don’t like gimmicks. Having a horn at the end of the exhaust is just as fake as those people that fit those blowers in road cars that imitate the sound of turbos. Let it be what it is.

Better to stay true to form than make it artificial.
@Fer-no65

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Jonny!

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

1994 F1 seasonMichael Schumacher won the Monaco Grand Prix – his fourth victory of the season – on this day in 1994.

An article on this race, the first after the deaths of Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger, will appear here later.

Image © Red Bull/Getty

Advert | Go Ad-free

82 comments on No fault with Vettel’s chassis, Red Bull say

  1. Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th May 2014, 0:13

    I still think the advantage Mercedes apparently weilds in traction and chassis balance on corner exit will pay them dividends in Monaco, so I’m not getting my hopes too high up.

    • Dave (@raceprouk) said on 15th May 2014, 0:21

      Exactly. Monaco isn’t a power circuit, but by the same token it’s not an aero circuit either. It’s all about traction and handling.

      • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th May 2014, 0:27

        It was the last sector in Spain – particularly the last two corners – where you could just see the Mercedes is streaks ahead @raceprouk. It looks like a 2013 car, whereas the others seem to be rally-inspired!

      • Calum (@calum) said on 15th May 2014, 1:18

        Doesn’t having a more powerful engine means the team can just strap on more ‘draggy’ downforce at Monaco than their rivals can.

        More ‘draggy’ downforce means they’ll go faster round the bends at a cost to straight line, but the latter isn’t defining factor at Monaco anyway so it doesn’t really matter (and having the more powerful engine means they can get away with it more than their rivals).

        • Robbie (@robbie) said on 15th May 2014, 1:34

          Others may know more than me on this but aren’t they all basically setting themselves up as ‘draggy’ as they can already? Of course they can’t be hurting their fuel economy too much either…not sure if that will be an issue at Monaco.

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 15th May 2014, 11:37

            As it’s the track where they are least on full throttle, I highly doubt that fuel will be much of a concern.

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 15th May 2014, 12:37

            @matt90 That makes sense to me except that I wasn’t sure if it was like driving a domestic car where you get much better fuel economy on the highway than when you are in town constantly having to slow or stop and then accelerate up to speed again. Sure at speed the revs are higher, but the momentum is there and the engine isn’t working as hard to move the car along. Somebody must have historical knowledge/data on how Monaco stacks up to the other venues wrt fuel usage.

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 15th May 2014, 13:24

            Engines are working hard all the time they are using the throttle heavily. So the difference is that in F1, even at higher speed circuits, the engines are working very hard, because obviously they are full throttle whenever possible. Although their speed doesn’t vary as much through the lap, the engines aren’t coasting and are still doing a lot of work. Whereas on the road, on a ‘high speed’ motorway section, you don’t have a particularly large amount of throttle and are pretty much coasting because you aren’t trying to go as fast as possible- you’re driving to a limit well within the car’s abilities even if you speed a bit (assuming you aren’t driving something from 30 or 40 years ago).

            Sure at speed the revs are higher, but the momentum is there and the engine isn’t working as hard to move the car along.

            But the drag is increased. If the throttle is fully open then the engine is still working hard, regardless of momentum. Think about how ridiculously fast they say a Veyron at full speed would run out of petrol. A Veyron wouldn’t run out that quickly at slower speeds, even if it was constantly accelerating and decelerating as fast as possible.

          • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th May 2014, 18:55

            @matt90 and the race distance is a full 40-47km less than normal.

    • mantresx (@mantresx) said on 15th May 2014, 0:38

      Yes, and there’s another variable that’s important, the different gear ratios the teams have, even if they use the same engine. Some may not even need to go higher than 6th around there.

    • Pennyroyal tea (@peartree) said on 15th May 2014, 8:06

      @vettel1 I agree with you. I said Ferrari would shock in Spain and now I’ll say Mercedes will shock in Monaco.

      • Don’t Just dream Ferrari has been giving us a donkey for a car, as has always been predicted Redbull is the only team trying to come closer to Mercedes. I however haven’t seen any advantage redbull has over Mercedes even on tracks like spain and malaysia which should play in the favour of redbull, That should show you that the Aero team at AMG Petronas/ is on top of their game this year than last year.

    • Patrick (@paeschli) said on 15th May 2014, 19:09

      Also, they got pole in the last two years …

  2. HoHum (@hohum) said on 15th May 2014, 0:43

    Surprised to read that there was a $Billion offer on the table for the F1 shares CVC purchased for $820Million given the summation in London of Judge Newey stateing that the sale did not undervalue the meridien stake.

    • Chad (@chaddy) said on 15th May 2014, 0:46

      That sale was years ago.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 15th May 2014, 6:33

        The sale was years ago yes @chaddy. But the 1 Billion USD offer @hohum refers to was presented in e-mail conversation at the trial against Bernie yesterday. It stated that contrary to what Gribowsky (and indeed Bernie) have so far maintained, an alternative bidder had hinted at that kind of money being on offer and added a 10% premium on top of what any other bidder offered (from the FT article)

  3. Chad (@chaddy) said on 15th May 2014, 0:45

    I think Monaco strategy will be fascinating. The only thing that will stop a Mercedes 1-2 is if someone else pulls off a pole. Vettel definitely could. But then, the Mercedes could have clean air or they will get a jump at the next pit stop. So the leader will have to stay out longer than Mercedes and they can’t get clean air in the middle anywhere. If Lewis and Nico split strategies I think ‘Vettel’ would be screwed.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 15th May 2014, 6:24

      As @vettel1 mentions above, Monaco is very much a track where traction is important. Downforce in fast corners, where Red Bull’s car does seem to be the best is nice, but there aren’t that many corners where it can help the team @chaddy. If Mercedes were a second ahead in qualifying in Spain, I can’t see how that advantage will just disappear for Monaco.

      • Chad (@chaddy) said on 15th May 2014, 6:37

        True, but Vettel has been very close this year, and he’s the best natural qualifier on the grid. It’s possible, even if not probable. This is probably the only chance this year to beat Mercedes, unless they have a double failure. It’s just so hard to pass in Monaco, unless someone runs a better strategy. I’m trying to be hopeful! And even though Lewis is faster than Nico, the latter has shown how well he can do at Monaco. It’s all going to be about Mercedes stuck behind people so that their faster cars can’t use that advantage.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 15th May 2014, 6:59

          “the best natural qualifier” Even if I would consider that term to be anything real, surely Hamilton with a great Mercedes would be at least Vettels equal in that respect @chaddy.

          The best way to beat Mercedes is by developing the car, and hoping for either technical issues for them or seeing Rosberg and Hamilton hit each other on track while fighting for the win. If there is a Red Bull right behind, or even ahead, there is almost 0 chance they will even try battling between them, instead working hard to get one or both cars ahead of the field

        • matt90 (@matt90) said on 15th May 2014, 15:53

          he’s the best natural qualifier on the grid

          Highly debatable. I’d say that comes down between Vettel and Hamilton (I personally would go with Hamilton, but that may just be my bias as a fan). And Hamilton has the better car.

        • Franz said on 15th May 2014, 16:29

          “The best natural qualifier…”

          There wasn’t much “natural” about the way his cars produced down force. From blown diffusers, fancy throttle maps & bendy wings… Vettel’s a great qualifier when his car is perfect (you expect that at this level… well, I do) but I see nothing out of the ordinary from him when it isn’t. Hamilton gets my vote for best natural qualifier, & it’s not even a close contest TBH. I respect your opinion, but wholeheartedly disagree.

        • DaveW (@dmw) said on 15th May 2014, 16:33

          By the end of this season, the Best Natural Qualifier will have been surpassed in total poles by a current driver. If this car stays good, Hamilton is going to kick much sand over the once apparently unreachable numbers Vettel set in the past couple years.

        • leotef (@leotef) said on 16th May 2014, 6:43

          the best natural qualifier on the grid

          May be the case, or not. Won’t know until we see HAM and VET at the same machine in the future. Or to a lesser degree there some circumstantial evidence might come to light by end of this season thru the mate battles in RBR just like ALO has said last year.
          By then, will definitely go with “one of more than several good qualifiers on the grid”

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 15th May 2014, 8:49

      I can’t wait to see how these guys will control those shaky cars. 1970s all over again.

    • JackJ said on 15th May 2014, 15:44

      It’s hard to stay out longer than the Mercs when the Mercs are cruising around and you are sliding everywhere destroying your tyres. That said, I would love to see a different car on pole to see how the Mercs try to get around it.

  4. ElBasque (@elbasque) said on 15th May 2014, 0:49

    Ouch, it’s a bit harsh musing the outcome of Williamson if anyone would’ve “bothered” to help. The parts of the chassis that weren’t in flames would’ve been red hot, and those guys were in shirts and blazers. I’d more readily blame the drivers parading past lap-after-lap. Despite protests that they thought it was Purleys own car, seeing another vacant car just past the wreckage should’ve told them something was amiss.

    • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 15th May 2014, 1:05

      That I agree with – for all the measures the drivers tried to impliment, most were pretty useless when it came to helping other drivers when they really needed it.

    • anon said on 15th May 2014, 7:45

      Purley himself, to a certain extent, defended the actions of the marshals by pointing out that the only thing they were issued with by the circuit owners was a rainproof plastic macintosh, which probably would have caught fire before the marshals could even get close to the car due to the heat being released.

      It’s also worth noting that the circuit owners were notoriously negligent – there had already been two fatal accidents in five years before Williamson’s death, yet they actively refused offers of help from the owners of the Nurburgring, used safety measures which, even by the standards of the time, were considered inadequate and actively trained marshals to not intervene in case of a fire, telling them to leave that to the volunteer fire brigade.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 15th May 2014, 18:31

      @elbasque And in the same interview he pointed out there were suitably attired people within 200 metres of the accident scene. How long does it take to run 200 metres?

      I don’t particularly wish to review the footage in painstaking detail, but from past instances where I have seen it I don’t recall seeing anyone approach the flames, then realise it’s too hot and step back. They just stood there looking around. And there’s no indication they tried to implore other drivers to stop and help Purley.

      As for the other drivers, they couldn’t see Purley’s car because it was hidden behind a brow, so many of them didn’t realise he was trying to save Williamson rather than rescue his own car.

      So I think what I wrote is fair.

      Incidentally, and not unrelated to the above, I’m not aware that the other people at the scene were ever identified or ever told their side of the story. Does anyone know differently?

      • anon said on 16th May 2014, 7:39

        I would suspect that the owners of the circuit actively clamped down on those present to ensure that nobody did talk, which would explain why there is relatively little from their point of view.

        They did the same thing after the 1970 Dutch GP, where Piers Courage was killed after losing control of his car (in an area of the track where Brabham and Rodriguez had both crashed earlier in the race weekend and Stewart had been begging, unsuccessfully, for Armco to be installed) – in that instance, the marshals were instructed to stay silent because of the fear of a backlash against the track owners and the sport by the press.

      • ElBasque (@elbasque) said on 16th May 2014, 10:11

        @keithcollantine Fireballs are rarely less than too hot.

        But fair enough, were the guys 200 metres away the volunteer fire team then i wonder, or marshals lucky enough to get hand-me-downs? Or alternatively is all the talk of under-equipped marshals in the 70’s hammed up a bit, and that actually there were a sizeable minority kitted out properly?

        This comment reminds me why i was a lurker for 2 years on here, the quality and quantity of most of the regulars is astounding, esp of anything before 1995 when i first remember watching. Maybe i’ll go make “F1Casuals” where we can debate issues with half the picture, supplemented by hearsay and folklore. :D

      • ElBasque (@elbasque) said on 16th May 2014, 11:19

        @keithcollantine
        Here we go, i’ve found the marshals that should feel ashamed.

        http://www.asag.sk/bio/dutchgp733.jpg

        Although as you can see, their view is totally blocked unless they stand in the road. Plus im sure even then they were using radios to communicate and co-ordinate rescues, and that they’d sent one crew out already. Then, as now, no-one is allowed to drive against traffic – especially as it was only yellow flagged on one corner.

        Yes, you could argue one of those could have ran to the scene with a foam canister, but certainly only through the in-field, through that brush. Unless we wanted another Tom Pryce.

        Though i presume with hindsight we can see the failings for what they are. I bet those fire crews at the time thought their setup was much more effective than it was, and if they’ve had the call that the other crew is en route, and knowing that general marshals have their own extinguishers too, its easier to compute why they didnt all sprint to the scene.

      • ElBasque (@elbasque) said on 16th May 2014, 11:31

        AND (tetra post)
        http://www.asag.sk/bio/inter3.htm
        here seems to be a translation of some recollections from at least two guys trackside. From what i can see, someone in race control and perhaps the guy waving the yellow on the TV. Can’t speak for its veracity though.

        • John H (@john-h) said on 16th May 2014, 13:02

          Filmed by live television millions of people watch the tragedy happen but in the controltower at the Zandvoort track there is no television

          @elbasque From reading that, it appears race control didn’t even have a television, which to me is unbelievable. Race director didn’t even know there had been a crash as no call was made from trackside. Had the race been stopped, the fire engine (200m further on) could have gone against the flow of traffic.

  5. Robbie (@robbie) said on 15th May 2014, 2:12

    Can’t say I’m really surprised to hear SV’s chassis was not distorted, although it sounds like they are testing it to the nth degree and that will take time.

    It was when I heard Horner on the weekend speaking specifically of their struggle with capturing energy under braking and the resultant imbalance that creates, and so much of their issues being software related, that I envisioned SV having such an uncontrollable and/or unpredictable feeling, or lack thereof, especially compared to what he had for so long. No wonder he thought it must be the chassis, and wanted that sussed out. Hard to feel too bad when the guy has had the luck of a capable car and such a great run with it, but it can’t be easy or fun for him right now when he can’t just tell them what he thinks they should do or that he needs setup wise at which point they take out a wrench…just as the chassis was a tangible thing.

    • Todfod (@todfod) said on 16th May 2014, 10:15

      but it can’t be easy or fun for him right now when he can’t just tell them what he thinks they should do or that he needs setup wise at which point they take out a wrench…just as the chassis was a tangible thing.

      I think he has no one else but himself to blame. All the other drivers on the grid are facing the same issues and managing just fine, especially his less experienced teammate who is yet settling in to a new team.

      I think it just goes to show that Vettel isn’t all that versatile without his tools.. such as the EBD. Mark Webber had the measure of him when the car wasn’t reliant on the EBD, and now Dan is thrashing him without it. If Vettel cannot ‘adjust’ easily, then maybe he isn’t as great as his fans make him out to be.

      Honestly, I cannot feel bad for the guy at all. He had an easy ride with a dominant car, and now he isn’t all that stellar without a dominant car. As simple as that

      • MattDS said on 18th May 2014, 15:14

        Why exaggerate so much? Webber didn’t have Vettels measure without EBD. Not in 2009, when Vettel outperformed Webber from the word go as a still very inexperienced driver. Not in 2012 where Webber outperformed Vettel for, like, all of 3 maybe 4 races in a whole season.
        And Ricciardo isn’t trashing Vettel. He did outperform him for two races, that’s right, but since when is that called being trashed? Show me a current driver other than Vettel who hasn’t been outperformed for a season and then tell me why people like you are questioning Vettel for being outperformed a few times in a year.

  6. BJ (@beejis60) said on 15th May 2014, 2:43

    On the RB chassis; I read somewhere where Marko said his chassis was bent…

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 15th May 2014, 6:29

      yes, that is what got it started in German media presumably. But Marko was wrong, as confirmed by several direct statements from the team @beejis60.

      • andrewf1 (@andrewf1) said on 15th May 2014, 7:25

        @bascb I wouldn’t say Marko was wrong, I would say he was lying. Though it doesn’t really come as a surprise from him.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 15th May 2014, 7:42

          I think its more likely that the team found “some things that were not completely OK” – that is what Vettel and the team mention, without getting anything more specific, and it got shorttracked to “yes the chassis is bent” by the time it got to Marko (as it was probably seen by him as a confirmation that “something was wrong” with that car) @andrewf1, as I generally tend to believe people are not lying just because but are prone to interpret what they hear/read to make it fit their previous beliefs.

          • uan (@uan) said on 15th May 2014, 20:49

            @bascb

            as I generally tend to believe people are not lying just because but are prone to interpret what they hear/read to make it fit their previous beliefs.

            no no no … that’s far too rational a position to have on an Internet forum :)

            I tend to agree with you, but only because it fits with my previous beliefs lol.

  7. trotter said on 15th May 2014, 3:23

    So what was it then, with that chassis, changing chassis and all that?

    • Robbie (@robbie) said on 15th May 2014, 12:47

      They’re struggling and this is one of the things they can do to confirm, or eliminate, some of the questions they have about the cars’ handling. Personally I think their issues are more to do with what Horner has hinted at as being software issues…the engine, turbo, and ERS are not coordinated as well as they could or should be, and the car is unstable/unpredictable under braking as a result. Software is one thing, but at least a chassis swap is something they could put a wrench to and physically investigate.

      • Sri Harsha (@harsha) said on 15th May 2014, 14:19

        When we dont know whats wrong with our system we will try to Format it to get it back up to speed , RBR just did the same as they are hitting lot of Software issues all the time and to confirm whether its Software or Hardware they changed the Hardware and here it is the Chassis

  8. TMF (@tmf42) said on 15th May 2014, 4:47

    It’s funny how much news a chassis can make. yesterday motorsport.com had an interview with Vettel where he confirmed that it wasn’t distorted but something else was found that made it easier for him to feel the car in the corner entry.

  9. andae23 (@andae23) said on 15th May 2014, 5:29

    Oh yippee, another documentary about F1 safety trying to leach off Rush’s success. :/

    TV producers of the world, please make a documentary about Fangio, Clark, the 1958 or 1964 F1 season, Mercedes’ domination in 1954-55 ot whatever, just stop making the exact same documentary over and over again.

    • graham228221 (@graham228221) said on 15th May 2014, 7:48

      It looks like one of the many fake trailers spliced together from other footage and some dramatic music. I’m sure of seen at least half of it elsewhere, and some of it seems really random and disjointed. I haven’t looked but I bet it’s linked to a Kickstarter for an aspiring/wannabe documentary maker/media student.

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 15th May 2014, 8:41

      @andae23

      If I was a Hollywood director and had money to produce a film on F1, I’d pick Roland Ratzenberger’s story. Not to focus on safety issues but to tell his amazing journey full of hurdles to fulfill his ultimate dream.

      A documentary about 1988 season should be fun to.

  10. BasCB (@bascb) said on 15th May 2014, 6:49

    Nice idea with the open car design – funny how Perrin mentions there is not that much sharing of technology between Automotive companies and F1. But then goes on to make a great case for how Motorsport does impact on aerodynamics, engineering as well as processes for getting things done fast/efficiently :-)

    So what if we put together a pool and got F1Fanatic on that car @keithcollantine, making a forum group for it as well to discuss ideas on and share with Perrin’s website?

    • Yappy said on 16th May 2014, 1:28

      This is the age of the internet. While they do F1 at Schools, I haven’t worked out why there is no contest for us older folk. Teams could run a contest for fanatics to design a car better than they are running. Sure they have top engineers etc. But there is a chance that someone out there has a gift. F1 could run a contest to test new rules. It is theoretical a fan based sport so include the fans.

  11. BasCB (@bascb) said on 15th May 2014, 7:11

    Completely agree with what @fer-no65 mentions in the COTD. Yes, amplifying sound just for the sake of sound is horribly artificial and has no place in F1. Its bad enough when BMW and other manufacturers place speakers in their cars to make the owner “hear the engine”, but at least that is mainly about fooling yourself.

  12. JCost (@jcost) said on 15th May 2014, 8:09

    To be honest, race car and road car technology isn’t as close as anyone would think. The technology for an F1 car is very specific. It’s designed for one purpose – to go fast around a race track. A road car, on the other hand, is built to do many-many things and to be cost effective. The technology in road cars at the end of the day isn’t driven by F1 much

    That’s the impression I’ve always had and that’s the reason I was not so into this new hybrid thing. I was “team Bernie” because insiders were predicting ugly, slow and silent cars. The fuel economy was it’s biggest advantage but coming with the tradeoff of less speed? No thanks! But before winter testing kicked-off my worst dreams in terms of design did not materialize and when car got to the track, speed was encouraging and before Australian GP I was already backing this brave new world of Formula 1. For me, design-wise it still did not relate much to my everyday car but it’s new Power Unit? I want a car with that and I’m sure it will be the norm in 10 years not only in other racing series but in road cars as well.

    But like Perrinn says, road cars usually don’t wait for F1 to push them forward (actually Mercedes had been selling Hybrid cars with similar technology for some time) but competition pushes technological development (and investment) at a higher speed in F1 and there are bits that can crossover to road cars, not only as something new but also as something more advanced.

    Perrinn is right, IMHO, when he says teams used the “road relevance” car for PR purposes and to justify huge spending but it is not different to other sports, even FIFA tends to overplay football’s role in people’s lives so, that’s fine.

    That was great read @keithcollantine. I wish Perrinn good luck for his LMP1 project.

    • TMF (@tmf42) said on 15th May 2014, 8:36

      @jcost though, what people underestimate is that F1 is still an important development platform. Manufacturers not only use motorsports to nurture new engineering talents, but also to develop technologies and new processes – which do find their way back into their toolboxes.
      There is no direct link between F1 and road cars but F1 is to car manufacturers what the skunk-team is to a company that relies on know-how. Bringing the technologies closer together makes sense because the benefits you can reap are way higher.
      It was absolutely the right move – otherwise the big guns in the business would switch to the WEC and leave F1. With the return of Honda you have also a small confirmation for that. In addition F1 is losing it’s relevance as branding/marketing platform because nowadays with online ads you can get exposure much cheaper, which makes the technological aspects even more important.

      • JCost (@jcost) said on 15th May 2014, 13:31

        @tmf42 Indeed. Honda coming back vindicates FIA’s route towards a more efficient series.

        I think F1 can embrace new media differently, and it’s in need of a new face badly. Bernie has done great things but he doesn’t look fit for the present challenges.

    • JeffreyJ said on 15th May 2014, 13:47

      To be honest, race car and road car technology isn’t as close as anyone would think. The technology for an F1 car is very specific. It’s designed for one purpose – to go fast around a race track. A road car, on the other hand, is built to do many-many things and to be cost effective. The technology in road cars at the end of the day isn’t driven by F1 much

      I never got the urge for ‘road relevance’ argument really.

      I mean, do people go a GP to watch road relevant cars? Really? Then pull out a chair, boy, and go sit alongside a freaking highway…..

      I think people go to a race/watch on TV because they specifically do not want to watch regularity. They want to see something extraordinary. People wan’t to see cars that resemble beasts more than their own car, roaring engines, smells of smoked rubber, wheelbanging drama and pretty girls in cat-suits. Call me oldfashion but the ‘sound’ (and looks of the car) to me is very much part of that experience

      It’s not that I don’t watch F1 anymore. Of course not, I love it way too much, but I’m not sure if I would have become a fan for live instantly if my first experience would have been today. I mean, I remember the shivers all over my body, my jaw dropping and my eyes going wide when I first heard an F1 engine starting in the pitlane. I could here it eventhough I was at a different part of the Zandvoort track and despite that it was only a demo, my excitement turned into franatical screaming and jumping as the sound got louder and louder until that beast came around the corner blew my socks off as it spit fire while down shifting in front of my nose….. I was hooked!

      Now imagine the underwhelming landmower sound of today’s vacuum cleaners with or without a fallus attached to front, going by. I don’t think that same kid would be jumping up and down, sadly…

      Furthermore, what releveance does F1 have to the job market for Randstad, or to banking for Santander? None! That’s how much. F1 is a marketing platform and eventhough a my Renault Clio doens’t look anything like what Sebastian Vettel or Romain Grosjean is driving, I do kinda dig Renault more than Peugeot because of F1. I even found myself buying a can of ‘Monster’ energy drink the otherday which I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t never done that if it wasn’t on Hamilton’s helmet.

      • matt90 (@matt90) said on 15th May 2014, 15:58

        I never got the urge for ‘road relevance’ argument really.

        Without it, none of the engine manufacturers would care. Mercedes and Renault would be highly likely to leave, and Honda wouldn’t be joining. I couldn’t care less otherwise, but with these engines it’s important for the sake of the sport to keep manufacturers interested.

        • JeffreyJ said on 15th May 2014, 17:07

          Yes, I get that it is important to them, I just don’t get why.

          Like I said, F1 is a marketing platform and by that I mean you want to make the platform as attractive to your targetgroup as possible in order to get exposure. Imho the platform attracks people when they get to see something specifically NOT ordinary but dramatically spectacular. That should be just as true for UBS or TW Steel as it is for Mercedes and Honda, no?

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 15th May 2014, 21:46

            Because being seen to use motorsport as a development tool makes for better marketing. It helps justify their involvement beyond just throwing money at something to treat it as almost plain old sponsorship. It makes people think that there is more of a link between the products they might buy and the awesome machinery on track. It’s exactly why Lotus’ involvement as only a sponsor is derided, and why F1 probably doesn’t help them sell cars quite as well as teams which do it properly. Actually using F1 as a development tool may lead to better products too. It may lead to genuine innovations.

            That should be just as true for UBS or TW Steel as it is for Mercedes and Honda, no?

            The sponsors have nothing to do with making the cars, so the type of marketing it provides is entirely different to the type which manufacturers gain and not really worth comparing.

            Imho the platform attracks people when they get to see something specifically NOT ordinary but dramatically spectacular.

            The new engines are spectacular- technologically. The only way they aren’t spectacular is aurally. There was possibly a certain amount of not realising before just how much quieter the engines would be, and also not realising that so many fans seem to only get their enjoyment from hearing loud noises.

      • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 15th May 2014, 18:32

        do people go a GP to watch road relevant cars? Really?

        No, but car manufacturers sign nine-figure cheques for road relevance, and as everyone now uses an engine produced by a car manufacturer that’s the ball game.

  13. Dan Brown (@danbrown180) said on 15th May 2014, 10:41

    The video of David Purley trying to save Roger Williamson is one of the saddest things I’ve seen.

    • F1_Americana (@f1americana) said on 15th May 2014, 17:35

      I’m with you @danbrown180.

      I watch it sometimes as a reminder that in some situations, I may have to face all my fears as I may be the only person in a position to help somebody else.

      While I’m sure the marshalls were under-equipped to say the least, just watching Purley plead for help and not getting any hurts my heart. Getting out of your car to help another drive makes you a champion in my view.

  14. Ricardo Ferreira (@yes-master) said on 15th May 2014, 11:25

    It’s always nice to watch a documentary about F1 past history. Not only because it’s a chance to understand F1 background, but also because we have the opportunity to listen the old racing engines. Beautiful sound!

  15. Aussie Rod (@aussierod) said on 15th May 2014, 12:20

    “In a few months’ time, nobody will speak any more about the noise. We will have found something else.”

    So true for two reasons.

    One, everyone will be tired of banging their head against the wall trying to communicate their feelings to the FIA when it’s clear the FIA doesn’t listen to its fans.

    Two, the FIA will announce some new, crazy, artificial, gimmick to ‘spice up the show’ that will become the new vent for fans anger towards the direction their beloved sport is being taken.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 15th May 2014, 12:53

      I think its enough that in a few weeks the prospect of actually having a race in Russia while they are still working hard to unravel Ukraine will take headline space, and parallel to that we will see the struggle of several teams gasping for air (cash) to make ends meet and maybe hear new talks of dropouts @aussierod.
      Sadly that rather supports your point.

    • Adam Hardwick (@fluxsource) said on 15th May 2014, 14:09

      when it’s clear the FIA doesn’t listen to its fans.

      Based upon the poll from this very site, I’d say there wasn’t an overwhelming argument to “fix” the sound. I’m a fan, I’m perfectly happy with it, so they’re listening to me. (Although not about the absurd double points)

      • JeffreyJ said on 15th May 2014, 14:14

        I’m a fan, I’m perfectly happy with it, so they’re listening to me.

        sounds more like they did something you didn’t mind, rather than them catering to your fan-needs, no?

        Or did you write Bernie about the car’s looking to slick and the sounds being to loud?

        • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 15th May 2014, 18:19

          Perhaps they just assumed F1 fans are a forward-thinking bunch who are more interested in cutting edge vehicle technology than having every race be a torture test of how much noise they can withstand?

          • JeffreyJ said on 15th May 2014, 19:00

            It might be my interpretation but I don’t like how you seem to be implying the smart-people versus dumb superficial-people dynamic to be frank with you.

            There is a place for everybodies opinion I’d say and to me the cutting edge technoligy, the looks/sounds and on-track racing all have their worth, non more than any specific other one.

            At this moment I enjoy the tech/engine supplier battle, the racing itself is on/of and I don’t like the sounds/looks. It’s a mixed bag to me so far and I’m just expressing that opinion, that’s all.

          • tvm (@) said on 15th May 2014, 23:00

            @keithcollantine

            “perhaps they just assumed F1 fans are a forward-thinking bunch who are more interested in cutting edge vehicle technology”

            Except for tires right, you like those to be bad, right?

            Saying that the sound is irrelevant and people should just learn to live with it is akin of trying to make hooligans stay quite so that we can hear the refs whistle, its simply disconnected from reality, have you ever stayed on a hardcore f1 camping ground..? The ones with chain saws sans saws but with a funnel for exhaust, purely brought to make noise, or the 1000 w stereo’s playing…. wait for it… formula one sounds?, fireworks between the tents at 04 in the morning..

            I’m as much of a F1 fan as you are and I can actually live with less noise, but I cannot live with everything being dumped down for the sake of saving a few gallons of fuel or saving ridiculously poorly made tires, and honestly I am getting rather tired and annoyed by you and you kind proclaiming on your high horse that everything is fine and we just don’t “understand” what f1 is about.

            I think you ought to take a tour in the helicopter and take a new look at things and ask yourself if it really can be true that racers in the spectacle of motor sports are seriously supposed to ask permission from their team to actually race?

            You have a voice now in the F1 community, you should use it better that just standing by loyally to everything except your little per peeve, DRS.

            Not that I don’t share that with you though :)

            Just so many other things, did I mention purpose build ugly car’s?

      • JackJ said on 15th May 2014, 15:50

        I’m a fan. I didn’t mind when they moved from V10 to V8 and I don’t mind the V6 either. I don’t watch F1 for the sound.

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.