McLaren, Red Bull come to terms over Fallows dispute

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Ron Dennis, McLaren, 2014In the round-up: Ron Dennis and Christian Horner have agreed terms over the Dan Fallows appointment dispute with McLaren ceasing legal action against the rival team.

Links

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

McLaren, Red Bull settle Dan Fallows legal dispute (NBC Sports)

“It is believed that as part of this new agreement between Red Bull and McLaren to end the Fallows squabble, [Peter] Prodromou could join the latter team earlier than expected; he is currently under contract to Red Bull until the end of 2014.”

Kimi Raikkonen admits he ‘cannot explain’ current F1 struggles (Autosport)

Raikkonen: “It’s very difficult to really understand what is going on. It seems to change. It can feel very difficult one lap, then suddenly for some reason a few laps later it’s like the tyres work better. I cannot explain the reason, otherwise we would know.”

America’s Cup: Sir Ben Ainslie announces British bid (BBC)

Ainslie: “He [Adrian Newey] is keen to help us but he has a lot of other commitments with Formula 1. We’ve just got to see how his timing works out in the coming months and years but he would be a huge asset.”

Gene Haas hopes to reveal his F1 engine supplier for 2016 (Sky F1)

Haas: “We haven’t signed a deal yet so I don’t want to overstep my boundaries and put the cart before the horse. But we are in negotiations and hopefully we will have something in the next few weeks.”

Abu Dhabi Grand Prix demand soars (Travel Daily)

“The number of tickets already sold, combined with number that have so far been reserved by companies, tour operators and agents, means that 75% of all tickets are spoken for. The percentage of sales figures is more impressive given an increase in total number of tickets this year from 55,000 to 60,000.”

F1 connectivity innovation prize announced (E&T Magazine)

“Engineers are being challenged to come up with the next-generation of connectivity technologies for Formula 1 racing, in a new $50,000 (£30,000) competition. The F1 Connectivity Innovation Prize will encourage entrants to test their creative and technical knowledge by finding ways to solve a series of real-world challenges faced by Formula 1.”

Tweets

Comment of the day

After Nico Rosberg called for a rethink on the corner-cutting rules, @jackysteeg agrees, but not with the Mercedes driver…

I agree with Rosberg, corner cutting rules do need a rethink. But my feeling is that mistakes like that need to be punished. I think it’s barmy that a driver makes an error and the question everyone asks is “did he gain too much of an advantage?” The question should be “did he get enough of a disadvantage?” The fact is that if Rosberg locked up and went straight at any other corner, he would’ve probably lost the position to Hamilton. It’s not the slightest bit fair that a driver who makes a mistake can get away with it.

I think a lot of these chicanes with all the runoff would benefit from having styrofoam boards that a driver has to navigate around before rejoining the track, like at Monza’s first chicane.
@jackysteeg

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Bazza!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Happy 50th birthday to Jean Alesi!

Advert | Go Ad-free

93 comments on McLaren, Red Bull come to terms over Fallows dispute

  1. R.J. O'Connell (@rjoconnell) said on 11th June 2014, 0:02

    Haas-Honda has a nice ring to it.

    • Alex said on 11th June 2014, 0:37

      Could explain why the Haas entry is allegedly being deferred until 2016, with Honda being exclusive to Mclaren in 2015, then maybe taking on another customer team in 2016… Plus, Haas is unlikely to pose much threat to Mclaren as the Honda “works” team.

      Then again, I’m probably totally wrong!

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th June 2014, 0:42

      Haas may well start with an of the shelf PU but I would be very surprised if he were not lobbying a US company ( GM in particular ) to join the team and demonstrate US technology and manufacturing prowess. The actual V6- ICE mechanically is no challenge, the challenge is in the ancilliaries and the electronic power supply and recovery, something GM has invested heavily in but has gotten little recognition or return on.

      • Vic (@hendrix666) said on 11th June 2014, 2:30

        I work for a lawfirm in Canada and we have one of many class actions against GM for the recalls they have made. I don’t think they will have money to get into F1 anytime soon @hohum. Maybe Ford?

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th June 2014, 4:53

          @hendrix666, I think you mean the recalls they DIDN’T make (sorry for shouting but, bold and italic options have gone missing), then there is the liability insurance to be fought over as well as the argument over whether NEW GM is liable for the actions of old bankrupt GM, get yourself on the case and you’ll be collecting your gold watch before it’s over, but I take your point. I still think GM would be the perfect supplier from a business synergy point of view (a 3L turbo hybrid Corvette seems a better match than a 3L turbo hybrid F100 ) but Ford or companies as diverse as Caterpillar or Lockheed Martin could link the race engine program to their everyday products.

      • bull mello (@bullmello) said on 11th June 2014, 5:38

        @hohum – The GM link could be a valid one since that is already their NASCAR motor mfr. (Chevrolet) Maybe, they have even had contact previous to Haas pursuing his F1 bid. Merely a guess on my part, but Haas looks like a guy who does his homework and has likely researched various power unit possibilities.

      • Baron (@baron) said on 11th June 2014, 18:01

        There isn’t a US company manufacturing or supplying any top flight racing engine (at F1/Indy level) now, so why do you think there could be one ready to run even in 2016?

        The Chevrolet Nascar and Indy engines have nothing in common, not even the manufacturer. Chevrolet Indy is (was?) manufactured by Ilmor which is now… Mercedes. Do you think Merc would permit a badge engineering job? I think not…

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 12th June 2014, 0:36

          @baron, Just because US manufacturers prefer to sub-contract out low volume projects doesn’t mean they don’t have the capability to produce a racing engine if they wanted to.

        • matt90 said on 12th June 2014, 4:26

          “Chevrolet Indy is (was?) manufactured by Ilmor which is now… Mercedes.”

          No, Merc took over the F1 engines division of Ilmor and made Mercedes High Performance Engines, but the Ilmor name lives on entirely independently with the continuation of Indy and other programmes.

          “Do you think Merc would permit a badge engineering job? I think not…”

          Not that this point means much considering what I just said, but that’s what you said you thought was happening already- that Merc make engines for Indy badged as Chevrolets.

      • BJ (@beejis60) said on 11th June 2014, 21:46

        @hohum then why is the Ferrari and Renault ICE units so badly down on power? You think it has to due with the hybrid systems?

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 12th June 2014, 0:28

          @bjis60, I am sure that a large part of MB’s advantage is due to cooler charge air coming from the de-coupled turbo and helped by the lighter mass ,therefore lower inertia, of same allowing electronic boost to be tailored to a broader rev range than the close coupled turbo’s of the opposition units. Superior hybrid systems are also possible but the rules regarding the physical design of the ICE are so tight that the only real variable is the compression ratio ie the volume and shape of the combustion chamber at TDC. This question would be better directed to @scarbs than me though.

  2. PhilEReid (@philereid) said on 11th June 2014, 0:05

    COTD is probably one of the best I’ve seen regarding such things. It’s odd to think a driver can not only make a mistake and not be punished, but in this case actually gain from it. It’s ludicrous. Have gravel or something similar to actually slow him down and there’s no way he’d just let off the brakes, he’d just go too deep and lose a position.

    • Rocky (@rocky) said on 11th June 2014, 0:18

      Spot On great COTD!!

    • SoLiDG (@solidg) said on 11th June 2014, 0:21

      indeed, A bit of foam would indeed be a good thing. That way the cutting will slow the driver down and he would make the corner or lose his place! Sounds about right.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th June 2014, 0:32

      COTD spot on, answers my question “how to prevent drivers gaining an advantage without compromising saftey” styrofoam might even damage a wing but not a driver.

    • Mike (@mike) said on 11th June 2014, 1:55

      Can’t use gravel, there potential for a fast moving car digging in is too high.

      • Rumble strips like when you approach a roundabout in the UK, lines of road paint that sit up maybe 5mm from the road surface, or even 10mm high sleeping policemen, say 5 in the area where Rosberg went straight on, that would slow him down, without launching the car or doing any damage, but enough to not want to go over them fast.

    • schooner (@schooner) said on 11th June 2014, 2:04

      @solidg A couple of styrofoam blocks within that particular chicane in Montreal sounds like a good idea. Or maybe just a few rubber cones that wouldn’t get pulverized when they get hit. Attempting to avoid these obstacles would probably provide enough of a time and/or track position penalty for the guilty driver, and there would likely only be a short local yellow if even they did get run into.

      • Michel S. (@hircus) said on 11th June 2014, 11:35

        Put helium-filled cones like the ones they use at the Red Bull Air Race, forcing drivers to zig-zag through them, and add a time penalty for each cone they hit (also from RBAR, though there hitting a cone causes an instant DNF – they add time penalties for incorrect positioning)

    • GeeMac (@geemac) said on 11th June 2014, 10:00

      I also tend to agree with the COTD, something has to be done in circumstance like those because I think it was clear that Rosberg did gain a “lasting advantage”, however small. Hamilton was well within DRS range and most likely didn’t have a look into the last chicane because he was going to use DRS down the front straight to see if he could have a go into turn 1, but then Rosberg made his mistake and the plan was foiled. I only noticed it when I watched the race again, but the mistake meant that Rosberg actually managed to break DRS and it took Hamilton another 3-5 laps to get back within range. If that isn’t a “lasting advantage” I don’t know what is.

      • Robbie (@robbie) said on 11th June 2014, 13:23

        I think that the fact NR only got a warning indicates that he gained no lasting advantage. LH was not attempting a pass, so NR needn’t have handed him a position that LH hadn’t earned. Any other penalty than a warning would have been handing LH a position. LH had been within DRS range many times ahead of NR’s chicane cut, so to me it is unfounded to say that LH would have had NR at the next zone heading into the Senna S’s had NR not cut the chicane. Had NR or any driver been alone and cut the chicane the same way nobody would have been bothered by it.

        I wouldn’t be surprised if by next year that open area NR was able to drive through had a hump of cement there like the rest of the apron. I admire NR for bringing up the topic of a rethink. He obviously didn’t do this as some plan to stay ahead of LH and isn’t planning on this as a new strategy to gain a fast lap around Montreal. I’m sure they’ll rethink that spot in Montreal and will take a closer look at some other areas of other tracks but I suspect most have already been dealt with and would not allow a driver to cut a chicane without having to slow down a lot or damage his underside. This instance was pretty unique.

        • OldIron said on 11th June 2014, 17:09

          The idea that Ham was willing to sit behind Ros forever strikes me as unlikely – he was almost certainly looking to pass.

          That he wouldn’t have passed in that corner if Ros hadn’t made an error doesn’t really look like a defence to me. The mistake was made, and if he’d been forced to make the corner, would then be a sitting duck on the next straight (a DRS assisted straight at that).

          The only realistic defence I see is that the stewards custom and practice is to give a polite warning first, then act. Just flagging up the incident as under investigation is unusually aggressive.

          Where I think that particular incident is extreme is not the corner cut: that could be a simple mistake, barely a warning. Accelerating across the off-track zone to ensure no pass is pushing it. Then, frankly, slowing down later to hand back some time and where it wouldn’t allow a chance of a pass is just taking the p—.

          Personally I would have given a penalty (which might have been a quiet instruction to yield the place). As much as I admire the dedication to protecting race position, its a violation of both spirit and letter of the rules.

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 11th June 2014, 21:30

            @OldIron As much as I have been defending NR on this, largely because I figure there had to be some reasons for NR to only get a warning from the stewards, I think it is hard to take issue with what you have said.

            The one thing though is…your 4th paragraph…I just don’t know how NR would have judged then, if not to accelerate, then how fast should he have gone? If he was thinking he did not owe LH a spot, which indeed seems he was correct to think that, then I don’t see how he could or should have done anything other than accelerate through, and then see if the stewards would make him give the spot up. So now that we know he didn’t owe LH a spot, as LH was not attempting to pass him when NR locked up, I think NR was wise to do as he did, with it likely on his mind that he might not be allowed it, but certainly was not going to give LH the spot unless instructed to in case he didn’t have to.

    • coefficient (@coefficient) said on 11th June 2014, 12:02

      Indeed, Rosberg seems to be developing the art of converting an “accidental” lock up into a tangible on track advantage.

      Any idiot could see that by straightlining the chicane with his foot to the floor whilst Hamilton dutifully negotiated said chicane is precisely what gave Rosberg a gap of half the pit straight to Hamilton following the lock up whereas on the approach to the chicane Hamilton was close enough to smell Rosberg’s breakfast.

      The full extent of the advantage gained was that Rosberg undid all the work that Hamilton had done in the first stint to close the gap enough to have a go into the final chicane.

      Rosberg says he lifted a bit to compensate, nonesense!! He cheated to prevent Hamilton from beating him fair and square. Drive through minimum.

      The Stewards got this wrong 100%.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 11th June 2014, 12:04

      I both disagree and agree with the COTD. First of all, NO the stewards should not step in all the time and hand out penalties. But YES, I agree that any and every runoff should be installed in such a way, that drivers can not get an advantage by cutting them.

    • JackySteeg (@jackysteeg) said on 11th June 2014, 12:54

      Cheers guys :)

      And thanks for the COTD Keith!

    • Sam S (@sam-sam) said on 11th June 2014, 17:01

      You know, it’s not the drivers responsibility to go and install blockers to prevent themselves from gaining an advantage should they not make the corner. Rosberg is not my favourite driver by far and I’m not defending him here. But calling for penalties without at least a warning here is a bit of a stretch. You guys must be coming from countries where you enjoy government ditching out punishments for every little thing even if it’s not warranted or proven wrong. From my observation Rosberg had full intention of making that corner and his right wheel was locked for a couple of seconds there. And after missing the corner, in the heat of the moment what should he have done? It’s a split second decision and he decided to accelerate, because that’s what racing drivers do when there’s an open road ahead. Because of the layout of that particular corner he knew he can push more and try to brake later without necessary hitting the wall. And that’s fine, there should be circuits where drivers can push and test the limits or be caught by surprise by under-performing tire(s) , and still be okay. In Monaco I didn’t enjoy seeing Sutil make a mess of himself because his tires caught him by surprise because of major performance factor from one lap to another. Back to Montreal, the stewards looked at the data and combined with the fact that Rosberg did slow down the following lap, they deemed he did not gain a big enough lasting advantage. I think this is more of a fuss than other scenarios simply because Hamilton was in pursuit and he’s more favored than Rosberg. Had Rosberg been 25 seconds up the road, commentators would have said he was caught napping. As it was, he locks his brakes, no one is passing him, he slows down later, data supports no lasting advantage yet people call for penalties. All because, oh well, he should have thrown some foam in front of himself before going straight through the corner.

    • hobo (@hobo) said on 11th June 2014, 17:07

      I came here to say something similar to @dmw. The Columbia incident was not the same as an F1 car/driver and a styrofoam board (different foam) but the concept is the same. Kinetic energy/force equations show that anything striking a driver is to be avoided. And a driver’s head/helmet are much more delicate than a ceramic tile.

      Once the decision has been made to increase safety by creating paved runoff, there is little else you can do. This is not a sweeping turn where you could theoretically put grass/turf followed by a wide expanse of pavement to penalize but provide runoff. This is a small corner in front of the pit wall.

      Given that, the proper thing to do would seem to be to have race control/stewards decide what the punishment is. Generally that has been a warning or warnings followed by penalties. A warning was given and presumably penalties were forthcoming had it happened again. I do not understand why everyone is so crazy about this.

      Grosjean passed Massa at the Hungaroring last year while being inches off the track, but still off the track, and people went crazy when he had to give the place back. The rules were followed in both instances. Putting moats with robot tire-eating crocodiles at the edge of tracks is not necessary.

      Safety of drivers is more important than ensuring that a particular corner isn’t cut. The stewards saw the data and felt a warning was appropriate. I’m not, by any means, trying to carry the stewards’ water for them. They do make bad calls sometimes. Agreed. But for corners like final one in Montreal, this is the best possible scenario.

  3. In_Silico (@insilico) said on 11th June 2014, 1:05

    The sooner Raikkonen gets to grips with the Ferrari then the better for all of us. Of all the teammate battles on the grid, potentially seeing Kimi on par with Alonso in most of the races would be utterly phenominal to watch. We already got a taste of it in Spain and I’d love to see it happen more. Regardless if you think that Alonso is the better driver of the two, moving to a new team does take a long time to fully adjust and get to grips with a new car. So give him time, as I’m sure he’ll keep steadily improving as the season progresses.

    • Chris (@tophercheese21) said on 11th June 2014, 1:30

      I hope he comes back to form soon as well! I was expecting this ALO:RAI teammate battle to be the most exciting one this year. It’s turned out so far to be anything but exciting.

    • Paul2013 said on 11th June 2014, 3:58

      “Regardless if you think that Alonso is the better driver of the two”?

      Ha ha, do you really think otherwise? Kimi? Better than Alonso? My god! The kind of things we have to read.

      • In_Silico (@insilico) said on 11th June 2014, 15:23

        @Paul2013 I never implied in my comment that I thought Kimi was better than Fernando. Nor do I really care. But regardless of anyone’s support or opinion on either driver, I’m sure we all share the opinion that to see a closer teammate battle between them would be amazing.

    • bull mello (@bullmello) said on 11th June 2014, 5:50

      The Ferrari F14T seems to be a rather recalcitrant and unpredictable beast for Raikkonen and Alonso both. Neither one are setting the world on fire with it.

      • Robbie (@robbie) said on 11th June 2014, 13:42

        @bullmello Agreed and to me KR’s remarks remind me of something Button said, and that might have been still in pre-season testing or at least very early in the season, I forget, but anyway he said everything can change even from one lap to the next. What was a braking point at a corner on one lap is not necessarily the braking point at the same corner a lap or two later.

        From what I can surmise from the general comments such as SV not liking this new formula, JB talking of things ever changing even by the lap, KR’s comments implying it’s a head-scratcher, I think the ERS has totally changed the feel of the cars especially under braking, and if the software isn’t co-ordinating everything between the engine, the turbo, and the ERS, you’ve got a very unpredictable beast on your hands, and that can’t be fun, especially coming off how the cars were to drive prior to this January. If you are not in a works Mercedes you are struggling to find answers, and even then you can have an overheating issue and your ERS shuts down.

        Hopefully as time goes along they’ll sort things out and the cars will be more predictable and more fun for the drivers.

        • Breno (@austus) said on 11th June 2014, 19:25

          Which brings a question Ive had for a long time: how good are Ferrari’s, Renault’s and Mercedes’ software engineers? Have they ever worked on a project like this?

          There have been many bugs and glitches so far, and even a virus! I also found Mercedes’ inability to restart the MGU-K rather odd.

          Furthermore, I think the software would be the easiest part of the car to test, as you can reproduce whatever conditions in the computer and not even turn on the car. Of course thats a huge amount of work, but it must have been done.

    • coefficient (@coefficient) said on 11th June 2014, 12:08

      Weird how Ferrari don’t seem to be able to field 2 equal cars isn’t it and conicidentally it always seems to be the perceived No.2 in the team that gets the problematic car whilst it’s plain sailing for the other guy.

  4. OOliver said on 11th June 2014, 1:36

    The reason I very much agree with the COTD is the situation of Kvyat.
    Kvyat didnt make any mistake. He was ahead but had to avoid an accident as it was made impossible for him to make the corner. Yet he would have been punished had he not surrendered the position because based on past events he would have got no warning.
    If the FIA wants to police the races and correct perceived injustice, then it should be for all such cases and not 5%.
    If there was a wall there, would Kimi attempt that move on Kvyat?

    • SatchelCharge (@satchelcharge) said on 11th June 2014, 14:38

      “If there was a wall there, would Kimi attempt that move on Kvyat?”

      I personally think he would not have. Kimi knows that they both would have crashed out if the track were lined with walls. Or at very least Kimi gets his nose taken off.

  5. Daniel (@collettdumbletonhall) said on 11th June 2014, 1:43

    I do hope Kimi improves. I don’t know if he will make any improvement as he isn’t doing an awful lot worse than Massa given his bad luck and how he was only a little better than Felipe during their time together. I hope he improves but I am not holding my breath. It’s been the most disappointing aspect of the season so far for me.

    Gravel traps would save the run off problems. Why they’ve gotten rid of them I don’t know?! Don’t they have an innovative solution at Paul Ricard to do with then paint?

  6. OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 11th June 2014, 1:58

    Is Massa still at the hospital? That’s worrying.

  7. GeeMac (@geemac) said on 11th June 2014, 5:45

    I think that Haas will go with Ferrari powerunits, and not just because he was seen in their hospitality in Canada. First, Ferrari is a major brand name and it has massive global appeal, having them on board would help him drum up commercial support for his F1 project stateside. Second, when Ferrari supply powerunits to customer teams (Sauber and Marussia this season) they provide the entire powerunit/drivetrain package. That means the ICE, ERS, Energy Store, gearbox, exhausts the whole lot. Being able to obtain that entire package from a third party supplier would be a massive advantage to a start up team and would allow him to focus more on other aspects of the car’s development. sure the Ferrari powerunit is a bit behind the curve now, but I’m sure they would have ironed out the kinks by 2016.

  8. TMF (@tmf42) said on 11th June 2014, 9:20

    regarding COTD – didn’t the FIA want to introduce a new penalty where they can switch off the ERS for 1 lap to punish such small infringements? What happened to that idea?

  9. JerseyF1 (@jerseyf1) said on 11th June 2014, 9:35

    Good to read that ticket demand is high for Abu Dhabi but is it really a surprise? Ok, so it’s a street circuit but the capacity is still only 60,000 which is really very small. This is far less than a top premier league football match and less than the capacity of even the smallest NFL stadium and these sports are competing week-in and week-out with tens of matches per week.

    Abu Dhabi is the season climax in a glamorous venue in a wealthy part of the world, for the top category of motorsport globally, one of only 19 F1 events worldwide all year. It seems ridiculous that selling ‘most’ of their 60,000 tickets is something for the organisers to crow about – it’s a pretty embarrassing state of affairs for the sport.

  10. Chris (@mccosmic) said on 11th June 2014, 11:22

    Total speculation but based on the following, how likely is it that we will see Vettel in a McLaren next year?
    – Button out of contract end of 2014 and in the twilight of his career.
    – Vettel out of contract end of 2014 and wanting a new challenge.
    – Vettel also motivated for a change by Newey taking a step back and Ricciardo currently outperforming him.
    – A new era in McLaren with Honda gives a real opportunity for a four time work champion to expand their CV and cement their status in the sport.
    Just a thought!

    • Fumbles (@) said on 11th June 2014, 14:43

      Vettel’s contract goes on until the end of next year as well.
      If that was a wish it wouldn’t be nearly as much of a gamble after watching McLaren’s season next year. He won’t go to a team that’s not at the front, so McLaren’s definitely not in his mind right now.

    • timi (@timi) said on 11th June 2014, 14:44

      @mccosmic Ohh I hadn’t even thought of that possibility!
      It would certainly be very interesting – Vettel + KMag in Macca/Honda.
      It’s early days in the season, but assuming the pecking order remains the same through to AbuDouble… Had RBR been more competitive with Merc then it would be fairly plausible to think Seb would contemplate McLaren as his new home, almost like a Hamilton to Mercedes type move. The problem however, is that they’re pretty far off the pace this season so he might
      a) want to stay and improve the car for next season or
      b) move, but only to a team he thinks will definitely be winning races in 2015.

      For me, the answer to both a and b is to stay at Red Bull. Not only is it his best chance of winning races and WDCs in 2015+, but if he left RBR now, after the first turbulent season post-4 WDC success, I’d like to think he’d get slated by viewers and media alike. It would leave a very very sour taste in my mouth!

      • Chris (@mccosmic) said on 11th June 2014, 21:16

        Looks like @paeschli is right. SV is contracted until the end of 2015. Even so I would love to see Vettel taking on a completely new challenge and it still might be a possibility if Ricciardo continues his current form. That must be hurting a 4 time WC and although he’s facing it off in the media really well, he must be feeling some pressure there. Time will tell…..

    • Patrick (@paeschli) said on 11th June 2014, 19:37

      I thought he had a contract until 2015 …

    • That all seems very plausible. (Except that I don’t agree that Ricciardo has been out-performing Vettel)

      His contract runs through 2015 – but sports contracts are hardly written in stone.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 12th June 2014, 1:11

      And just after Vettel announces he is going to McL Horner announces Mercedes to supply PUs to RBR.

  11. Massa is a clown.

  12. craig-o (@craig-o) said on 11th June 2014, 14:09

    Kimi is really having a torrid time. He has scored just 21% of Ferrari’s points so far which is less than any other driver’s contribution to their team’s points except for Chilton and Maldonado. He’s also made a catalogue of errors which you don’t usually see from the Finn. He has had some bad luck (which Alonso has had very little of) but some of his drives have simply been woeful… Finishing second last of the drivers at the end in Canada (11 drivers crossed the line and he was 10th) is simply not good for a Ferrari driver. As a fan of Kimi, I do hope he can give Alonso more of a challenge soon, like he did in Spain and Monaco because we all know that he can perform much better than what he is doing so far.

    • Robbie (@robbie) said on 11th June 2014, 14:26

      @craig-o Agreed, and I suspect the ‘catalogue of errors’ has to do with the unpredictability of the car and how it feels, since we don’t usually see this from the Finn, as you say. The fact that FA is doing better might just be a random thing, and a reflection of the team having more recent data on FA from him being the senior driver on the team, but then looking at RBR, SV is the one seemingly more on his hind foot for now. The unpredictability and complexity of these new cars sure has presented a challenge…and now we know even for mighty Mercedes. They’re not bullet-proof either.

      • craig-o (@craig-o) said on 11th June 2014, 14:50

        @robbie SV clearly doesn’t seem happy with how the car works and can’t seem to make the car work to his driving style, so he will have to try something different it seems… Vettel hasn’t been driving badly, he has had some bad luck, it’s just that his team mate has been driving better so far. I’m sure both Vettel and Raikkonen are trying their best to get their respective cars to work for them but it just doesn’t quite seem to be happening at the moment for them… I hope that they do get on top of it as the season continues…

        • Robbie (@robbie) said on 11th June 2014, 15:05

          @craig-o Agreed again and it’s got to be so frustrating for them, to not be able to just use their traditional thinking and methods to solve this and improve. I do keep in perspective that we were told this was a complex new era that would take the teams some time to tackle…after all, F1 is supposed to be hard…but I suspect the drivers were not quite expecting this type of headache of not knowing from one lap to the next how the car would react to their inputs.

    • trotter said on 11th June 2014, 17:57

      @craig-o @robbie

      It can be said a lot shorter. It’s simply called driving skill. After a long time, we finally have the cars that have to be driven, instead of just steered left or right. Is it a surprise that Alonso was a frontrunner no matter the regulations, engines, tires, teammates…

      Is it also a coincidence that drivers like Kimi, Button and Vettel are always those who are “suffering” when car is not perfect. When Alonso or Lewis are uncomfortable with their car, they come second to their teammate. When Kimi, Button and Vettel (Vettel less so, but still suffers this syndrome), they usually end up in the wilderness. Unless car is doing exactly what they want, which means, doing half a job for them, they can’t drive properly, because they can’t drive all aspects of the car. Just those they are comfortable with, while leaving the rest to the mercy of their engineers.

  13. Garns (@) said on 11th June 2014, 14:53

    I have not read all the above posts to be honest but RBR and McLaren to settle is better, court rooms are not for F1 racing teams!!

    On that Red Bull have been very smart to their new contract to Adrian Newey. “We want his help in F1 for the future, but no-one else (aka “The Horse”) can have him. Clever. Pay him a butt load, we want F1 help as needed, do want you want (on that- why the hell is sailing fun but F1 not……….but I digress) but keeps from him from other hands. Horner may well be the great replacement for Bernie, I don’t think he will, but its a good choice- they think alike!

    • Robbie (@robbie) said on 11th June 2014, 15:26

      @garns While I do take your point about the consequence of AN having an extended contract with RBR being that he can’t go elsewhere in F1, I think the Ferrari thing was only ever a rumour, so I don’t think there was a strategy here by Horner to keep AN to himself. If there was a strategy at all it was to keep AN from leaving F1 all together, by allowing him in his contract some freedom to do things outside of F1.

      I read years ago that AN was interested in designing yachts, as a new and different challenge from F1. I believe it was after his success at Williams and Mac and he had been there and done that in F1. So even up to 15 years ago AN was looking for a different challenge in his life. Now that he has come to the opinion that F1 has moved away from the direction such that his ilk can really explore and shine, I am not surprised whatsoever that a move to another team was not going to be challenge enough for AN, and that in fact he wants to do things totally different than F1.

      We all know he is hugely talented and respected and I’m sure he’s got some incredible ideas when it comes to yacht design for example. He has obviously been thinking about it for a long time. Who knows what else he’s got on his drawing board.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 12th June 2014, 1:23

      Sailing is 95% fluid dynamics and 5% lightweight construction, so the allure to AN should be pretty obvious.

  14. DaveW (@dmw) said on 11th June 2014, 15:17

    On the COTD, I share the sentiment. But one has to remember that the reason why we have asphalt run-off, unobstructed, is to help the driver keep control of the car or regain it, so as to avoid meeting a barrier. The other day I watched the F1 Fassbender-narrated documentary and after a couple hours of seeing drivers being dismembered or barbecued you get the intensity of the desire to keep cars out of barriers at all costs. The last corner at Montreal is especially difficult in terms of trying safely to abate the cars in run-off because of the angle and the fact that it is also the pit-entry, which must be heavily defended from incursion. Speed-bumps or gravel there could sent a car tumbling at 200mph into or over the pit-wall. Personally I think that this corner needs a bespoke solution—the driver cutting the corner, as an unforced error, should have to do it again, but at a set (i.e., slow) delta time, and then yield to other cars in rejoining the track if necessary.

    • Robbie (@robbie) said on 11th June 2014, 16:04

      For me I think all they need to do is put a small ‘speed bump’ there and NR would not have accelerated through but rather would have had to slow dramatically. I take your point about a car tumbling at 200 mph but I don’t think NR would have kept on the throttle and his speed would have been half what it was if the apron was continued at that spot. Even a narrow band of gravel that would never be enough to stop a car and get it stuck would still have harmed the tires by dirtying them and cooling them such that LH would have likely been able to overtake him and thus make him pay for his mistake. Or even a driver doing this while fairly alone on the track would have his next lap time compromised by either a continuation of the apron, or a car-length strip of gravel.

      I think there are many possible easy solutions to this, and even as I think of it perhaps gravel might get onto the track and harm cars about to come through there, although they are coming through on the other side of the track on the normal racing line. If the F1 officials in charge of track design and aprons etc etc have good reason for this opening to remain as it is then perhaps even a simply rule stated in the drivers’ meeting that anyone doing a ‘Nico’ must show the stewards through their telemetry that they did not accelerate through that runoff area, and in fact backed off the throttle in a noticeable way akin to how they have to react to a local yellow flag, would be sufficient. They already know that cutting a chicane and passing a car as a result means giving the spot back, so I don’t see a big stretch to have the drivers do a noticeable backing off at that spot in Montreal just for cutting through there even if they hadn’t passed somebody in doing so.

      • BJ (@beejis60) said on 11th June 2014, 21:59

        Ya, I was also wondering why the runoff area in the chicane even had the break in the speedbump leading up to the wall. That should have been encased completely in a speedbump in my opinion.

  15. It’s odd that people are making so much of the Rosberg corner cutting incident, considering that it had absolutely no effect on the eventual outcome of the race. Perhaps it’s Hamilton fans trying to build a case for a penalty for Rosberg in a similar incident in a future race?

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 12th June 2014, 1:33

      Please, no effect, Hamilton had to thrash his car for several laps to make up the defecit and this was very likely why his problem created a retirement but Rosberg was able to finish without any loss of points in 2nd.

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.