Alonso says he hasn’t talked to other teams

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Fernando Alonso, Ferrari, Hockenheimring, 2014In the round-up: Fernando Alonso says he is not talking to other teams about a move from Ferrari.

Links

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

Alonso: “I haven’t talked with any other team” (Ferrari)

“Every year now I get asked this question in July, maybe since I started in 2003. I haven’t talked with any other team and it’s not my priority.”

Lewis connects with fans on BBM channels (Mercedes)

“Are you in favour of the new changes for 2015? Especially the standing starts after safety cars??
Lewis: Not really! We’ll have to wait and see!”

No mind games with Rosberg – Hamilton (BBC)

Hamilton: “We’re not really playing mind games but every time we go faster it naturally has an effect on the mind.”

Todt: F1 summit meeting will happen (Autosport)

“Boredom? I don’t see it, and most of all I don’t see anyone lifting the throttle in the races in order to save fuel.”

F1 braced for attacks over alcohol backing (The Telegraph)

“The road-safety lobby is preparing a public-relations offensive against Formula One over its links with the alcohol industry, having successfully thwarted FIA president Jean Todt’s ambitions of a job at the United Nations.”

Nico Rosberg, Mercedes, Hockenheimring, 2014Nico Rosberg scraps plan to wear World Cup trophy helmet in German GP (The Guardian)

“[FIFA] cannot allow a commercially branded helmet to feature the FIFA World Cup trophy as this would jeopardise the rights of our commercial affiliates. We appreciate Nico Rosberg’s desire to congratulate the German team and have therefore been in discussions with the Rosberg team to attempt to find a solution, whereby he is still able to show his support for Germany without using FIFA intellectual property in a commercial context.”

FIFA argert Rosberg Verbot fur den WM-Helm (Auto Motor und Sport, German)

World Cup sponsors Hyundai are claimed to have initiated FIFA’s action against Rosberg’s helmet design.

Schumacher’s wife offers hope for the future (Reuters)

“I have to say your sympathies blew us all away. Good to know that together we made it through the hardest time. Now we are facing a phase which will presumably take a long time.”

F1 Shareholders Race Towards £585m Windfall (Sky)

“Crucially, the new debt package will not include any change-of-control clause, making it theoretically easier for F1′s parent company to be sold without triggering onerous repayment obligations.”

Exclusive Nico Rosberg Q&A: I’ll do anything to win at home (F1)

“Q: Your dad (1982 world champion Keke Rosberg) was racing relative simple cars back in his day. Is he interested in the development the F1 cars have taken since then?
NR: No. In Monaco he put the headsets on and said ‘are you crazy?’ because there is so much stuff going on. He said that we – all the drivers – are completely crazy. How can we ever concentrate on driving with all this stuff going on!”

Tweets

Comment of the day

Torque takes issue with Sebastian Vettel and Kevin Magnussen arguing for more lenient penalties for unsafe releases from the pits:

If we assume that they shouldn’t be penalised for a mistake the team is doing, then why on the other hand should the team be penalised when the driver makes a mistake (e.g. causing a collision).

The team always suffers when the driver does a mistake, but the driver should never suffer from a penalty if the team does the mistake? Seems quite unfair in my opinion.

As in every teams sport there is the old saying: you win as a team, you lose as a team.
Torque

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Wizardofoz, Icemangrins and Bill Niehoff!

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

Stirling Moss’s narrow win in the 1955 British Grand Prix at Aintree is well-remembered because he crossed the line in close company with team mate Juan Manuel Fangio.

It happened again four years later, on this day in 1959. Again Moss prevailed – by the tiny margin of two-tenths of a second – but it was in a battle for second place, Jack Brabham having already collected the win 22 seconds earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAucRC0Bdv4

Images © Ferrari/Ercole Colombo, Mercedes/Hoch Zwei

Advert | Go Ad-free

70 comments on Alonso says he hasn’t talked to other teams

  1. Fer no.65 (@fer-no65) said on 18th July 2014, 0:20

    Totally fair from FIFA. As much as I hate that organization, if it’s commercial rights, it’s commercial rights…

    And for the better. The WC picture looked horrible on the helmet.

  2. Dave (@raceprouk) said on 18th July 2014, 0:20

    I don’t see anyone lifting the throttle in the races in order to save fuel

    Absolutely Todt; the race engineers tell drivers to ‘lift and coast’ because they’re bored.

    And it’s about as surprising as finding out water is wet to see Todt agreeing with his former employer.

    • Breno (@austus) said on 18th July 2014, 1:55

      I dont see it either, I need you to point me out a significant amount of messages to take that seriously. Most of the fuel saving has been done through engine settings, so the drivers are still pushing.

      • Iestyn Davies (@fastiesty) said on 18th July 2014, 4:32

        I noticed on the Canal+ onboards that on Lewis’ fastest lap he was revving up to 12k in the mid gears and coasting in low 7th on Hangar Straight.. But I imagine it’s mostly engine settings doing the work now.

        • anon said on 18th July 2014, 6:43

          The fact that he was only going to 12,000rpm is not surprising – although the theoretical rev limit is 15,000rpm, in reality most of the engines are only meant to rev to about 12-13k because the restrictions on fuel flow and theoretically unlimited boost pressure means it is much more efficient and effective to rev lower than 15,000rpm.

    • JerseyF1 (@jerseyf1) said on 18th July 2014, 9:31

      @raceprouk I just read that article, and as I read it Todt is disagreeing with pretty much everything Di Montezemelo is saying (as highlighted by the quote you have used). The section heading is “TODT DISMISSES ‘TAXI CAB RACING’ CRITICS” – and I recall Monty was that critic.

      Incidentally on the taxi driver comment; I really don’t get it. I can’t recall ever being in a taxi where the driver appeared concerned by either fuel consumption or tyre preservation. I’d say that taxi drivers thinking they are racing drivers is a much bigger problem than the reverse!

    • sumedh said on 18th July 2014, 10:44

      the race engineers tell drivers to ‘lift and coast’ because they’re bored

      Actually, the engineers telling drivers to lift and coast happens because although they lose time on straights, they gain more on account of having a lighter car (due to less fuel) during the acceleration phase of the car. In current formula 1 tracks, they spend a significantly large amount of time accelerating the car (about 60-70% of the lap). Hence, over the course of 300 kms, lifting and coasting is the faster way to reach the end.

      This is why, you saw lift and coast messages even in pre-2014 (no fuel limit). To summarize, ‘lift and coast’ is actually faster than ‘driving flat out’, even though it seems counter-intuitive.

      • HoHum (@hohum) said on 18th July 2014, 13:36

        In fact so counterintuitive given your explanation and your pre-2014 comment I think an alternative explanation is required;
        When the driver “lifts”his foot of the accelerator, fuel to the engine is cut, and the car ‘coasts” rapidly reducing speed as the MGUK generates electricity to re-charge the batteries, and yes, that charge in the battery can be used to accelerate. I hope that is what you meant.

        • sumedh said on 18th July 2014, 14:02

          Umm, I did not account for MGU-K. What I meant was, when the driver lifts, fuel to the engine is cut. Hence, the total fuel requirement for a race reduces. Hence, the weight of the car reduces. Hence, the car accelerates faster. Now, weight of a car is no small thing. Just compare the difference in lap times between qualifying and race – it is almost 4 seconds per lap!!.

          I think adding your MGU-K point and my weight of car point, it then makes ‘lift and coast’ even more powerful compared to ‘driving flat out’.

          I think the last time we had driving flat out was probably in 2009 when re-fueling was allowed. But do would anyone really like to go back to re-fueling just so that we can see flat out racing?

  3. matt90 (@matt90) said on 18th July 2014, 0:58

    “The road-safety lobby is preparing a public-relations offensive against Formula One over its links with the alcohol industry, having successfully thwarted FIA president Jean Todt’s ambitions of a job at the United Nations.”

    What nonsense. I could understand it with fags as they’re far more addictive and more easily become part of a damaging lifestyle. But the problem they actually have with alcohol seems to be the supposed mixed message that you shouldn’t drink and drive. Well you should probably avoid banking-and-driving too. Replacing the oil or petrol in your car while actually moving seems like a mistake. And negotiating an airline contract to fly a fleet of Airbus A380s from Bournemouth to Wigan (I have no idea why an aerospace company sponsor an F1 team) while simultaneously driving a car through rush-hour traffic seems like poor business if not poor driving practice.

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 18th July 2014, 7:56

      I too think it’s ridiculous.

    • BS (@bs) said on 18th July 2014, 9:17

      Alcohol is one of the most addictive substances that can be sold legally and far more damaging that cigarettes ever were, both to the health of the individual user but particularly to society. Various kinds of violence, vandalism and indeed drunk driving are huge direct consequences of alcohol use.

      Whatever your position on advertising the stuff, there is no denying alcohol is far more dangerous.

      Frankly it surprised me it took this long. A Johnny Walker logo on the side of a 200mph racecar with the slogal ‘drink responsibly’ is completely idiotic.

    • JerseyF1 (@jerseyf1) said on 18th July 2014, 9:37

      @matt90 I’m wouldn’t generally disagree with your view, though I always thought that this was somewhat inevitable following the tobacco ban.

      I like your point on the connection between the advert and driving – perhaps another one to consider is not using a mobile phone and driving, so should Vodafone and Carlos Slim’s mobile telephone businesses also be banned? Your comment on what’s more addictive and being part of a damaging lifestyle is actually quite the opposite to what you suggest though so it’s not an argument which I think wins the argument.

      • matt90 (@matt90) said on 18th July 2014, 11:28

        Your comment on what’s more addictive and being part of a damaging lifestyle is actually quite the opposite to what you suggest

        How so? Surely far more people are addicted to smoking than drinking? While many people do occasionally binge drink I would have thought that the rarer lifetime of addiction is where the worst damage comes, and that is far less common in drinkers than in smokers. Do all the varieties of cancer and other issues caused by all the people smoking not result in more problems than in all those drinking?

        • beneboy (@beneboy) said on 18th July 2014, 12:53

          Addiction isn’t the only cause of problems with alcohol though: go to a town or city centre on a weekend evening and you’ll find loads of people fighting and damaging property because they’re drunk, A&E departments full of people suffering the effects of alcohol and few of those who drink & drive are classed as alcoholics.
          I still don’t agree with a ban on alcohol advertising/sponsorship, I just think the problems asociated with alcohol go much further than addiction.

  4. ScuderiaVincero (@scuderiavincero) said on 18th July 2014, 1:00

    Thank you Giedo van der Garde. Both our countries, The Netherlands and Malaysia, suffered terrible losses as a result of the crash. As a relative of one of the deceased, I extend my condolences to your countymen, along with the countrymen of all those who were lost.

    • Jay Menon (@jaymenon10) said on 18th July 2014, 1:14

      @scuderiavincero
      Sorry for your loss.

    • Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989) said on 18th July 2014, 3:34

      @scuderiavincero
      I was shocked with this horrible news, 2 airplanes with more than 400 people onboard vanished in 4 months, that’s horrible. I’m really sorry for you mate and for all the families of the victims.
      What shocked me the most is the story of a passenger of the flight MH17 who posted a picture of the plane in question on his facebook profile an hour before the flight and said “If it disappears, this is what it looks like”. I have absolutely no words.

    • Iestyn Davies (@fastiesty) said on 18th July 2014, 4:36

      Condolences.. As someone who’s flown that route and with that carrier before, it is tough to digest that it could be you or your loved ones that happen to get unlucky.

    • alexf1man (@alexf1man) said on 18th July 2014, 6:46

      I also send my condolences – very sad for you and those who knew anyone / had relatives onboard.

      • ScuderiaVincero (@scuderiavincero) said on 18th July 2014, 8:13

        @pelican, @tifoso 1989, @fastiesty, @alexf1man, thank you all for your kind and comforting words, and may closure come to all who have lost loved ones in this tragic episode.

        • AmbroseRPM (@ambroserpm) said on 18th July 2014, 10:09

          @scuderiavincero I’m very sorry for your loss. I can’t imagine how difficult it can be at this time.
          On other terms, Australia the 3rd most affected country in this catastrophe is definitely feeling the pain. Our PM has asked all flags at half mast and a national day of mourning I believe. I’ll definitely keep all families in my prayers and wishes in the foreseeable future.
          It has been nice to see all the outcries of support on social media etc.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 18th July 2014, 8:22

      My condolences to you and your family @scureriavincero, this is just so sad.

      Also off course to everyone else who had family, relatives or friends on there.

      I can only hope this horrible incident makes the people warring (in UA but also in other places) realize this is not a game and stop it and settle their differences without weapons.

    • Michel S. (@hircus) said on 18th July 2014, 9:40

      My condolences @scuderiavincero … so many lives lost through a grievous mistake.

      In addition to what @bascb said, hopefully in the future airlines would be required to steer clear of conflict zones…

    • PhilEReid (@philereid) said on 18th July 2014, 10:15

      @scuderiavincero My condolences. I can’t imagine what it must be like. My thoughts go out to all involved.

      I also mirror the thoughts of @bascb . Hopefully it’s the kind of wake up call people need to show how completely unrelated and innocent people can be caught up in these terrible situations.

    • F1_Americana (@f1americana) said on 18th July 2014, 18:54

      Very sorry for your loss, too.

    • Alex McFarlane said on 18th July 2014, 21:39

      I would also like to add my condolences.

      It beggars belief that a plane full of people largely looking to create a lasting positive legacy for mankind can be downed by a bunch of people whose legacy will be remembered as nothing more than causing grief, death and destruction.

      I hope that answers are found soon and some form of justice can be achieved for all those that lost their lives.

  5. matt90 (@matt90) said on 18th July 2014, 1:00

    “The road-safety lobby is preparing a public-relations offensive against Formula One over its links with the alcohol industry, having successfully thwarted FIA president Jean Todt’s ambitions of a job at the United Nations.”

    What nonsense. I could understand it with cigarettes as they’re far more addictive and more easily become part of a damaging lifestyle. But the problem they actually have with alcohol seems to be the supposed mixed message that you shouldn’t drink and drive. Well you should probably avoid simultaneously banking-and-driving too. Replacing or purchasing the oil or petrol in your car while actually moving seems like a mistake. And negotiating an airline contract to fly a fleet of Airbus A380s from Bournemouth to Wigan (I have no idea why an aerospace company sponsor an F1 team) via hands-free while simultaneously driving a car through rush-hour traffic seems like poor business if not poor driving practice.

    • zimkazimka (@zimkazimka) said on 18th July 2014, 3:37

      Not advocating anti-alcohol stance, but you do realize that drink-and-drive does not necessarily refer to simultaneous actions? So yeah, you can finish everything else you mention and go on driving just fine. But you can’t finish drinking Smirnoff shots and get behind the wheel.

  6. Jay Menon (@jaymenon10) said on 18th July 2014, 1:13

    Cant Advertise Tobacco – because it will kill you
    Cant Advertise Alcohol – because it will kill you
    Cant Advertise Gambling – because it will get you broke and leave you living on the street, which will eventually kill you
    Cant Advertise Fast Food – because it will kill you
    Cant Advertise soft drinks- because it will kill you
    Can Advertise Oil – because it kills the environment, which will eventually kill you

    …so basically, these anti-anything campaigners have pretty much concluded that any product thats worth advertising, in one way or another, will kill you….way to go people…but perhaps they could go get real jobs!

  7. HoHum (@hohum) said on 18th July 2014, 1:30

    Ain’t it all a crying shame – the rich get richer – and it’s the poor that get the blame.

    Teams are struggling to survive while the shareholders borrow another $ 1 Billion for a windfall payout to themselves as they ensure they maximise the amount of money they can bleed out of F1 before they off-load the rights that originated when Max Mosely sold the FIAs rights to Bernie for a mere $ 0.3 Billion.

    • Pelican (@pelican) said on 18th July 2014, 2:51

      I agree, it’s ridiculous and disgusting. For the love of god, can the teams get their act together already to try and do something about CVC before it’s too late?

      • Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989) said on 18th July 2014, 3:59

        @pelican
        With the strategy group in place, F1 is a “sport” available for the VIP of the VIP teams : Ferrari, RBR, Mercedes, Mclaren, Williams and Lotus(the best of the rest) . Do you think that Bernie Ecclestone will take the risk of letting the teams getting their acts together and do something about the future of the sport. These teams are perfectly fine with Bernie’s policy.
        Mercedes got the regulations perfectly suited for them, RBR experienced this in the last 4 years and Ferrari,the most influential team, who are not winning at the moment are having a veto on the sporting regulations and they are always rewarded with the biggest money prize.
        As long as these teams are getting a preferential treatment from Bernie, they will never try to do anything for the sport.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 18th July 2014, 8:25

      And the cost of it gets taken out of the teams as well as tax payers account (because the interest will be tax deductible cost), while Christan S will surely explain that FOM is making only small revenue on the whole thing @hohum.

    • petebaldwin (@petebaldwin) said on 18th July 2014, 11:48

      F1 is nothing without the teams. It always amazes me that they don’t simply drop out of F1 and start a new series where the money goes to them instead of a separate company that offers no value to the sport.

      • Ryan Fairweather said on 18th July 2014, 12:22

        That’s what IndyCar did. Remember how badly that was affected by the ChampCar split. That’s not to say they couldn’t do it properly and start a new series. It wasn’t that long ago they were talking about GP1.

  8. JackySteeg (@jackysteeg) said on 18th July 2014, 1:48

    I’m really concerned about a potential restriction on alcohol advertising. There’s barely enough sponsorship in F1 these days, and I think the absence of alcohol advertising would leave another big hole. I certainly believe that, when people talk about the reasons for the economic plight of F1, that people often underestimate the impact of outlawing tobacco advertising. I often wonder whether teams like Caterham, Marussia and Sauber would be in such financial trouble if Benson & Hedges, Rothmans and West were still allowed to splash their money around.

    Tobacco advertising also gave us the best liveries, but that’s another matter…

    • VMaxMuffin (@vmaxmuffin) said on 18th July 2014, 4:08

      Not to mention Marlboro. Although they tended to just give more money to the best teams anyway…

      • Deej92 (@deej92) said on 18th July 2014, 15:17

        Marlboro still gives money to Ferrari through Philip Morris. You probably know this anyway but you only need to look at Scuderia Ferrari’s logo to see where Marlboro is getting its exposure.

    • matiascasali (@matiascasali) said on 18th July 2014, 4:29

      I disagree. In times of the tobacco money, they were teams struggling too. Ask Alain Prost about it, or Minardi, or even Arrows. Even lotus folded in the peak of tobacco money. If Caterham, or Marussia were back in those days, they still be struggling, like now.

  9. Joaquin (@fat-tyre) said on 18th July 2014, 3:34

    He only sent emails…

  10. VMaxMuffin (@vmaxmuffin) said on 18th July 2014, 4:07

    I assume the issue with the alcohol is the Williams-Martini sponsorship?

    I think it’s a bit ridiculous. It’s different to cigarettes which are addictive, alcohol not so much. I see their point of view, but it’s not like the team is really encouraging driving after drinking alcohol (whereas with cigarettes it was promoting ‘general consumption’, which hurts health whether driving or not).

    In any case, the V8 Supercars here in Australia has always featured many cars backed by alcohol-related companies. This year, there are two cars backed by Jack Daniel’s whiskey and one by Bottle-O (alcohol store), and in the recent past there have been cars backed by Jim Beam whiskey, Bundaberg Rum and others.

    If we’re so concerned about the messages sponsors send, then we’ll stop Red Bull sponsorship because of the sugar in drinks, as well as sponsorship from any car manufacturer because having their names on race cars promotes racing in the streets.

    • Iestyn Davies (@fastiesty) said on 18th July 2014, 4:37

      If alcohol and then fizzy drinks were banned, what would Red Bull call their team..

    • Jay Menon (@jaymenon10) said on 18th July 2014, 7:22

      @vmaxmuffin

      “I think it’s a bit ridiculous. It’s different to cigarettes which are addictive, alcohol not so much”

      Are you serious? Both are pretty addictive…and frankly, addiction to alcohol is far more damaging, not only does it damage one’s health, the social and domestic issue it causes is far worse.

      Thats not the point here. If you want to penalize a product for its potential effects on health of an individual, enviroment or community, then, there isnt much you can advertise. Cheese and meat contribute to a large percentage of “avoidable deaths”…why dont they stop ASDA selling meat and cheese?

    • craig-o (@craig-o) said on 18th July 2014, 12:22

      @vmaxmuffin Both are highly addictive and can cause major harm when abused, that is a fact. Depending on what you read, anything can/will kill you. I find certain types of sweets addictive. Sweets are known as being damaging to health, so should we stop advertising of sweets? I don’t think so. I think that advertising does need to promote a product/service, but not abuse that product at the same time. I have nothing wrong with alcohol, tobacco or any advertising, but if advertising for a product is banned in certain parts of the world, we have to respect it I guess.

  11. Pennyroyal tea (@peartree) said on 18th July 2014, 4:51

    Racecarengineering Enjoys failed engineers. Top 20 to 50 men on Caterham were fired. I can’t see what’s wrong with penalizing the people responsible for the mediocrity.

    • anon said on 18th July 2014, 6:51

      I think that Racecar Engineering were commenting on the way that they were treated on a personal level – even if you think they have underperformed, you should at least treat them with some courtesy.

    • matt90 (@matt90) said on 18th July 2014, 12:06

      Presumably these include a lot of fairly normal people who have been made jobless.

  12. Jueta (@eljueta) said on 18th July 2014, 5:37

    Hamilton: “We’re not really playing mind games but every time we go faster it naturally has an effect on the mind.” – whoa hold your horses Dostoyevsky

  13. Pawel (@marik) said on 18th July 2014, 6:48

    “The road-safety lobby is preparing a public-relations offensive against Formula One over its links with the alcohol industry, having successfully thwarted FIA president Jean Todt’s ambitions of a job at the United Nations.”

    I’m absolutely not against road-safety actions, I hate speeding or drunk idiots like probably everyone else. But why, why they assume people are idiots? If you’re normal, you don’t drive drunk. If not, you’ll drive drunk anyway and you don’t need to look at Williams with Martini logo to do that. Why it’s so hard to work out, why do people in power can’t see that?

    • The Blade Runner (@thebladerunner) said on 18th July 2014, 8:48

      I can see the court scene now:

      “Your honour, I was a good boy that never did anything wrong and always kept a clear head. Then I saw Valtteri Bottas come second at Silverstone in a car emblazened with the Martini logo. Ever since I’ve drunk nothing but vermouth morning, noon and night… It’s not my fault you see your honour. It’s all down to the media and the corporate machine. They robbed that post office really…”

  14. Mashiat (@mashiat) said on 18th July 2014, 9:06

    maybe since I started in 2003.

    Dear Fernando,

    YOU STARTED IN 2001!!!

  15. Rich Rigby said on 18th July 2014, 12:10

    About this moaning on unsafe releases. Let’s just check a few facts.

    1. An unsafe release *vastly* increases the likelihood of someone in the pitlane getting hurt.
    2. They have still been happening! (despite the harsh penalties)
    3. They don’t have to happen – ever.

    Now you could have a 5 minute pit stop where everything is triple checked, but of course that would be ridiculous. However they *can do* a perfectly safe pit stop, and there needs to be a serious incentive for them to do that. The drivers are only moaning because they new penalties ARE WORKING.

    Making the penalties more lenient will just encourage them to keep releasing cars unsafely, which simply isn’t acceptable – You don’t want to wait until someone actually gets hurt to make the change. If that camera man had been less lucky then this wouldn’t have been a serious conversation. So ignore the moaning, keep the penalties, and make sure nobody gets hurt.

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.