EU action could affect Russian Grand Prix

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Sergey Sirotkin, Sauber, Sochi, 2013In the round-up: The European Union could extend its sanctions against Russia, in response to the continuing crisis in Ukraine, by targeting sporting events such as October’s inaugural Russian Grand Prix.

Links

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

West considers penalty against Putin (FT, registration required)

“According to an options paper circulated in European capitals on Tuesday, the EU is considering whether to recommend suspending Russia from ‘high-profile international cultural, economic or sporting events’ including Formula One races, European football competitions and the next World Cup, awarded to Russia in 2010.”

Ferrari open to Ross Brawn return (CNN)

“Everyone would like to have Ross or would like to see Ross back at Ferrari.”

Alonso: I’m staying at Ferrari (Sky)

“It’s not my intention at the moment to move, I want to win here and finish the job that we started some years ago and we will see what the future comes.”

Renault would support engine freeze lift (Autosport)

Cyril Abiteboul: “There should be a system to allow performance to converge rather than performance to diverge.”

La nuova vita di Domenicali (Quotidiano, Italian)

Stefano Domenicali: “You had written many horrible things in 2010 about the order to [Felipe] Massa in Germany, but there existed a hierarchy determined on Saturday night, there was no cheap shot at the last moment.”

How to buy a bit of proper Team Lotus (ESPN)

“Despite a chequered history in one or two cases, it’s fair to say that even these items could no longer be considered a ‘heap of rubbish’. They come from a time when the name Lotus represented a team with heritage and not a cosmetic bargaining tool shoved around the F1 entry list.”

Tweets

Comment of the day

Honda is happy with the direction F1 is heading in and @JCost believes they’ve got it right as well:

Honda is absolutely right. Hybrid is the way to go and F1 has restored part of its appeal by adopting those sophisticated power units. Look at what road sport cars makers are doing already: Ferrari LaFerrari, McLaren P1, Porsche 918 Spyder, Mercedes SLS AMG Electric Drive, BMW i8. Toyota is working on their FT1 to join the new era.

F1 is a prime lab for car makers again, a place the World Endurance Championship was running away with. I would not be surprised if in few years another German car maker joins F1.
@JCost

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Tim C!

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

Five years ago today Ferrari announced Giancarlo Fisichella would drive the remaining races of the 2009 season for them. Fisichella took over from Luca Badoer, who in turn was substituting for the injured Felipe Massa.

Image © Sauber

Advert | Go Ad-free

101 comments on EU action could affect Russian Grand Prix

  1. Joshua Mesh (@joshua-mesh) said on 3rd September 2014, 0:12

    Honestly the EU must just bugger off now.

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 3rd September 2014, 7:24

      Putin has been bullying EU for a long time, now EU feels tempted to show their muscles.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 3rd September 2014, 9:07

      why? I think those are actually things that would hurt Putin a lot! Not that it’s likely to happen, but still

    • Jules Winfield (@jules-winfield) said on 3rd September 2014, 9:11

      Why? Do you think that Putin’s actions are acceptable?

    • MaroonJack (@maroonjack) said on 3rd September 2014, 11:43

      Honestly, Russian apologists should just bugger off now.

    • Strontium (@strontium) said on 3rd September 2014, 18:44

      @joshua-mesh Ah this is where it all gets very political! While I withhold my views now, I do think that Formula 1 should be left alone as a sporting event, and not affected by things like this. I know all of the arguments for and against, etc., but that is my opinion. F1, while it attracts global attention, is not a game for the politicians to mess around with.

      Slightly off topic on this comment, but as for the tarmac run-off, a small strip of grass before the tarmac would do perfectly, just punishing mistakes that bit more, while allowing cars to continue without a problem.

      And as for the lift on the engine freeze, well while I am aware that in terms of cost cutting it is good, and there are many other advantages, the reality is F1 is a competition whereby not just the constructors, but the engine companies too are competing to push forward and have the best engine, and I think they should all be able to push near to the maximum that they can (within that year’s regulations), or otherwise have sole suppliers such as with the tyres. The engine freeze at the moment just gives a complete disadvantage to those who start off worse, and I think Renault and Ferrari have it spot on, and it should be opened up more, not all the way, but more.

  2. JP (@jp1987) said on 3rd September 2014, 0:26

    I am no Putin fan, but I honestly think EU and US should start thinking about a policy of appeasement as opposed to further sanctions. I think Putin was very offended the way Western media covered one of his personal projects, Sochi Olympics, to the point that he needs to prove a point. His approval ratings are higher than ever at home and even if the Russian economy would suffer, he could always point to the West as the main culprit.

    Is the “invasion” of Ukraine or support of the rebels wrong? I think so, but you can only fight fire with fire. So unless the EU wants to support the “rights and interests of European citizens in Russian” economic sanctions will do nothing to deter him. He is playing a way larger hand with much more at stake. Time to either really step up to the challenge or start appeasing!

    • Mach1 (@mach1) said on 3rd September 2014, 1:20

      You are right!! I mean…appeasment worked the last time another european country was invaded….don’t believe me….I am sure we had a scrap of paper to prove it!

      (please read the above in a mildly sarchastic tone)

      • JP (@jp1987) said on 3rd September 2014, 1:40

        @mach1 I believe it is important to analyze every situation as a stand alone issue and not take history into account that much. I appreciate the sarcasm, but hear me out:

        As I said in my comment, you can only fight fire with fire. Putin is clearly ready to raise the bar with his evident support of the Russian separatists. Is the EU/US gonna do the same? Is there any military support being provided by NATO to Ukraine? I don’t think so. There is no appetite or leadership among the European/US leaders (or their populations) to undertake any form of conflict escalation.

        These leaves us with economic sanctions. While this certainly will hurt Russia, I think Putin is ready to tank the economy if necessary in order to get what he wants. And lets not forget these sanctions also hurt European producers, I believe it is not that smart to shut down entire markets given the meager “growth” experienced by European economies after a half decade recession. Not to mention, winter is coming! where is all your precious gas gonna come from?

        That is why I think appeasement is the way to go. If Putin is the problem, if we want a diplomatic end to this all, he needs to be a part of the solution.

        Looking forward for your comments

        • Alex W said on 3rd September 2014, 2:50

          War is hell and best avoided where possible. Putin is prepared to go there while others aren’t, so he is in a position of strength. The smart thing to do (in the west) is to allow Putin to do what he wants. The right thing to do is to stand up to him. I suspect governments will do the smart thing, and use non violent measures like sanctions, but there is no correct solution to the Putin problem. I am sure the race will go ahead, but will feel good if it is cancelled.

          • HoHum (@hohum) said on 3rd September 2014, 3:15

            The right thing is also the smart thing, Putin is a bully and will continue to bully surrounding countries as long as he gets away with it and will raise the stakes every time, the right thing to do is to hit back before the stakes get to high.

          • Dimitri Konyshev said on 3rd September 2014, 4:56

            The right thing is also the smart thing, Putin is a bully and will continue to bully surrounding countries as long as he gets away with it and will raise the stakes every time, the right thing to do is to hit back before the stakes get to high.

            @hohum – you are correct and I for one appreciate your honest directness on the matter.

            By entering into a direct military conflict with Ukraine, Putin committed a fatal mistake b/c he won’t be able to escape from the current situation without losing face, something for which he will do everything he can to avoid, but that the strength of combined Ukrainian regular and militia forces will make impossible.

            You see, the Russian army is far from as powerful as the majority of people in Russia have been led to believe (by propagandistic media).

            In fact, to speak metaphorically (if you do not mind), Russia today is a colossus with feet of clay … the level of corruption in Kremlin offices is an order higher than in Ukrainian ones … And when generals steal, the men in the ranks suffer, I’m sure you’d agree, no?

            Today everything shows that the Russian army is not so terrible and undefeatable as Kremlin propagandist Dmitry Kiselyev suggests in his programs!! Even amongst the least sanguine, this fact is beginning to be recognized in Kiev; and soon they will understand it in Moscow also.

            After all, the zinc caskets are already beginning to arrive in the depths of Russia.

            Formula 1 should not accompany them.

        • On other words Putin’s gambling that we don’t have the stomach for a fight and don’t want to risk the recovery in the EU and using that to invade another country, and we should let him do it?

        • graham228221 (@graham228221) said on 3rd September 2014, 6:55

          I believe it is important to analyze every situation as a stand alone issue and not take history into account that much.

          Yes, that sounds like a good idea.

      • pxcmerc (@pcxmerc) said on 3rd September 2014, 7:20

        the sad thing is Russia hasn’t invaded Europe, it’s the other country with hundreds of military bases spanning the globe :) It’s just not something people want to admit.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 3rd September 2014, 9:17

          Really? Sorry, but you really need to check your sources if you honestly believe that Russia is NOT using its secret forces AND regular military units and heavy equipment to take a part of another state, i.e. staging an invasion of Ukraine right now @pcxmerc.

          I know its hard for Putin and his band to accept that EX-soviet countries are now independent, but that is no excuse what so ever to act upon.

        • Apples to oranges comparison. All invasions are not created equally.

          US does not invade other countries to annex them. Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Germany, Italy or Japan, none of those countries has become part of the US. Big distinction.

          • Brian Cantin said on 5th September 2014, 1:15

            I am currently sitting on land the U.S. acquired after it invaded Mexico. Ask the Hawaiians about being invaded and losing land. Ask the Okinawans about what happened to their island. Ask the former residents of Diego Garcia about losing land to the USG. Ask former residents of the Marshall Islands who had their home obliterated in atomic tests. Ask the residents of the Philippines, who had their country invaded, and occupied for two generations. Ask residents of Korea and Germany, who have had land annexed after wars, and now suffer the presence of rampaging GIs.

  3. lawrence said on 3rd September 2014, 0:27

    I’m not surprised by the EU politics, which are pretty much just an extension of the US’ foreign policy (the less said about US foreign policy, the better), but I’m really saddened and disheartened by the number of people who are still in the line of thinking that USSR is some big boogeyman who is somehow threatening their way of life.

    Last time I checked, it’s not Russians going around the world, telling people how to live and installing puppet dictators, it’s USA.

    And now, after US and EU have already funded the previous incarnation of Ukrainian rebels and pushed the nation into civil war, the Russians are helping the pro-Russian Ukrainians and are all of a sudden demonized for it.

    The matter is actually pretty clear. US wants to install NATO bases too close to Moscow for Russia to just stand by.
    Ukraine is just a battlefield. This is purely US pushing the limits of what Russians will accept, since Russians seem much less hostile and warlike than those peace-loving philanthropists from the other side of the Atlantic, who are just defending their own freedom in some weird way which involves bombing and killing people on the other side of the world for no good reason.

    But remember, Russia is the bad guy.

    • Adam Hardwick (@fluxsource) said on 3rd September 2014, 1:02

      Last time I checked, it’s not Russians going around the world, telling people how to live and installing puppet dictators, it’s USA.

      No, they’re simply annexing pieces of a sovereign country, secretly (secretly?!) waging a war against that country, and providing civilians with military hardware – which is then used to shoot down airliners. What a stand up bunch of people they are!

      Normally I’m willing to accept that these kinds of situations can support multiple view points, but attitudes like this are disgusting and borderline insane.

      Yes, Russia is the bad guy.

      • George (@george) said on 3rd September 2014, 2:11

        The US has supported half the rebellions during the arab spring, plus the coup in Ukraine which started this whole mess. Now they’ve got a crusade being fought in the middle east and half of Ukraine (who’s preferred leader just got ousted lets not forget) would rather defect to Russia than be ruled by a western puppet.

        Putin can’t just sit around while his political allies get deposed, this is just him calling the west’s bluff.

      • The United States and the European Union are not any better than Russia. The whole situation would not have escalated, if the EU did not force Ukraine to sign the “association agreement”. They knew that this agreement would tear the country apart and could cause a war. Both, the United States and Russia are profiting from this situation. They are both called saviours in the media (depends on your point of view) and get tons of orders for their arms industries.

        There is no good guy in this sick game. They are both bad, very bad.

        • Dimitri Konyshev said on 3rd September 2014, 4:59

          There is no good guy in this sick game.

          Said like a true Putin-apologist.

          The “good guy” in this “game” is each and every courageous, loyal Ukrainian defending his country from Russian imperialism and Russian-funded/fueled/equipped/trained/&_motivated separatism.

          • drmouse (@drmouse) said on 3rd September 2014, 9:18

            The “good guy” in this “game” is each and every courageous, loyal Ukrainian defending his country from Russian imperialism

            Playing devil’s advocate:

            What about those courageous, loyal Ukrainians who want close ties with Russia, and are defending their country from (what they see as) Westernisation of their culture?

            Remember, this conflict actually kicked off when the pro-Russian government was deposed by a pro-West uprising. The West of Ukraine wanted closer ties with the EU rather than Russia, so protested, rose up against the govt and forced them out.

            In the same way, those in the East of Ukraine want closer ties with Russia, not with the EU.

            Russia has acted badly in this, supporting the pro-Russian Ukrainians.

            However, the EU/West has also behaved badly. We supported the uprising in Kiev, even though that govt was democratically elected. I don’t put it at the same level as Russia’s involvement, as we only supported politically, but we did so for our own, selfish reasons, not for the benefit of the Ukrainian people.

            So I agree that, externally to Ukraine;

            There is no good guy in this sick game

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 3rd September 2014, 9:51

            Hm, @drmouse, but if we go with that line of thinking, then the one government was at least voted in by parliament (including former Janukovic backers), while the leaders of the guys who claimed to be “seperatist” weren’t elected by anyone at all.

            So if you want to doubt the right of that government to rule UA, then the seperatists should be completely off the map.

            I do agree on the sentiment that its a hugely sad situation that did not need to happen nor does it really benefit anyone.

          • Optimaximal (@optimaximal) said on 3rd September 2014, 9:55

            @drmouse

            Point of note – this didn’t all *actually* escalate until the Pro-Russian government started killing protesters.

          • How can you be so blind?! Russian imperialism, really? It’s rather US-terrorism/-imperialism! They deliberately wanted to tear Ukraine apart, because they wanted the war to start, so they could “support” the new government by selling them weapons.
            The United States did that several times, i.e.: Cuba (but it didn’t work), Congo, Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Egypt, Libya;

          • drmouse (@drmouse) said on 3rd September 2014, 10:40

            Like I said, I am mainly playing devils advocate. I know that many people have strong anti-Russian opinions, and rightly so in many cases.

            But the govt in charge at the moment in Kiev was not (I think, correct me if I am wrong) elected. They came to power only after the previous govt was overthrown. The “separatists” in the East, therefore, could legitimately claim they are fighting for their democratically elected government.

            I agree that the govt handled the protesters badly (understatement, I know). But I am just trying to communicate that there are many innocents involved in this, and taking sides is not the way. What needs to be done is for a ceasefire to be brokered and new elections to be organised.

            Oh, and all external parties need to get their noses out of internal Ukrainian affairs.

          • Please correct me if I’m wrong. But my understanding is that no-one was deposed. There were protests against the dropping of the EU agreement and signing of the Russian one. The protests were “passionate”, but largely ineffective.

            Government forces then started killing protesters. As the fighting escalated, the Government (remember a Government isn’t just one man) either voted not confidence in the President, or were about to. The President then fled the country. A new Government was then formed from the elected members of the Ukrainian parliament. This is entirely in line with democratic norms after the loss of confidence in a government. There was no overthrow, there are no persons in the Ukrainian Government who were not elected.

            The former Presidents own parliament voted to remove him from power, in a totally legal and democratic process. I would suggest that stating otherwise is largely a distraction from the appalling behaviour or Russia and her in-country allies.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 3rd September 2014, 15:33

            sorry, @drmouse, but you are wrong on both accounts.
            1. while it certainly was not a standard democratic process, the current government was in fact chosen and voted through the UA parliament, containing members of Yanukovic party as well.
            Its true that it was not completely standard circumstances, as some Yanukovic supporters had fled, but in any other country where the president/prime minister or cabinet lose support of the parliament, its the parliament that installs a new government.

            2. the Seperatists never even tried claiming they were

            fighting for their democratically elected government

            just that they wanted out of UA and have their seperate “republics”

            As mentioned earlier, there’s a great many people who are stuck in the middle of this without being to blame.
            But as for sides, sorry but its pretty clear that Russia has been using completely falsified arguments, propaganda and lies to stage this whole “seperatist” movement.

            Yes, it got support from locals initially, but wouldn’t you when you expect a horde of fascist barbarians who are out to kill everything Russian, as they were told on Russian TV and radio? By now, most people there are just worried, afraid and hope that it will just stop as soon as possible.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 3rd September 2014, 9:32

          if the EU did not force Ukraine to sign the “association agreement”

          That is complete nonsense and if you bothered to look for other sources than Russian propaganda, you would know that @srga91.

          The association agreement only gives UA better access to EU markets, it doesn’t affect trading with Russia, or trade agreements in place between UA and Russia in any way, just give more options. The only part where it would make a difference, is in its focus on rule of law, which would make crony-ism harder in the future.
          And the “forcing” part – Janukovic also WANTED to sign it because it offered a boatload of money for him and the country to earn. He only balked when Russia more or less put a knife to his throat (cutting off Russian markets for UA) and then offered a carrot if he did NOT sign.

        • The whole situation would not have escalated, if the EU did not force Ukraine to sign the “association agreement”. They knew that this agreement would tear the country apart and could cause a war.

          Spot on.

        • Kinda like the argument that a rapist is not to blame for a rape. No it’s the woman wearing a skimpy outfit that caused it.

      • Dennis the menace (@) said on 3rd September 2014, 6:19

        ‘Secretly annexing pieces of sovereign country’. What a joke. Is Scotland trying to secretly annex their own land by holding a referendum. Crimea held a legal referendum and very publicly voted to join Russia. Now parts of the Ukraine who do not want to be ruled by a US backed puppet neo nazi government are fighting for their inherent rights to be free whilst defending daily against bombardment by the ukrainian army. But you just go on believing the crap the US neo cons and their complicit mainstream media keep feeding you.

        • Actually, the legality of the referendum in Crimea is rather questionable. A Reuters investigation has shown that the vote within the Crimean government on whether or not to put a referendum to the public to join Russia shows that many of the lawmakers who are supposed to have voted were in fact not even in the Crimean peninsular when the vote was held, with considerable evidence of vote tampering and coercion.

          Asides from that, on what basis do you call the Ukranian government “Neo Nazi”? The extreme right wing only got 2% of the vote and no seats in the last elections.

        • nmsi (@nmsi) said on 3rd September 2014, 7:45

          Well Scotland has no invading army to control them while having “referendum”. And rebels bought their tanks and grads from supermarkets and are all native ukrainians (last i checked every one of their leaders was russian).
          What is most saddening is that russian media is brainwashing their people with very well made lies that locals believe as a truth and non-locals can’t believe that anyone could treat them as truth. Add those delusional people to paid internet commentators and one gets the current state of comments under any article that even mentions conflict.

        • Adam Hardwick (@fluxsource) said on 3rd September 2014, 8:39

          @denhugh

          The referendum in Crimea was not legal. It breached the constitution of Ukraine which it was (is?) a part of. Even if it did have a legal backing, the presence of Russian and pro-Russian on the streets of Crimea meant that the vote can never been considered free or fair.

          Comparing the situation to Scotland is disingenuous, or demonstrates a total lack of understanding of what “legal” means.

          ‘Secretly annexing pieces of sovereign country’. What a joke.

          When you quote someone, please do so accurately. What I actually said was:

          No, they’re simply annexing pieces of a sovereign country, secretly (secretly?!) waging a war against that country, and providing civilians with military hardware

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 3rd September 2014, 9:39

          Lets have a look at that one @denhugh

          Crimea held a legal referendum and very publicly voted to join Russia.

          First of all, the referendum was not legal under any law in place. Second, if you really have a look at the results, you will find that they were never actually fully published. The most accurate real ballot results suggest only a bit over 2/3rds took part and the majority voting Yes was not as big as what was publicized by the people who took power in the region.

          As for the neo nazi part – maybe you have to look at how much support the extreme right got in the UA presidential elections on the one side, and at how many Russians involved on the side of the “seperatists” have close ties to Russian extreme right groups.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 3rd September 2014, 9:46

          And before this gets too much into a discussion – fact is that Porosenko offered the regions involved that 1. Russian would be one of the countries official languages and 2. offered their elected representatives far going freedom for the regions involved as one of the first things he did in office.

        • matt90 (@matt90) said on 3rd September 2014, 19:08

          What a hilarious comparison.

      • pxcmerc (@pcxmerc) said on 3rd September 2014, 7:24

        and the US State Department (Victoria Nuland ring a bell?) leading a coup against the “democratically” elected president of Ukraine? I am sure that doesn’t count though. Even if the people in Crimea, supposedly voted to move away from Ukraine. Many different players are involved in upsetting Ukraine, selling it out to corporations, etc, there is no one bad evildoer involved in a situation that will ultimately punish the peoples of Ukraine.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 3rd September 2014, 9:27

        To be honest, the US have done their fair share of all of that in the last 50-60 years (as have the soviets/russians), @fluxsource.

        But currently, the US is rather trying to pull back out of such situations, not engaging in them actively – see hesitation to act in Libya (it was France and the UK who pulled the US in), in syria, in Iraq as well as in Ukraine Lawrence and @pcxmerc
        No one in the Nato had any interest in investing in military bases (see cutting down on military spending all over Europe) in eastern EU countries, and even less in Ukraine, before Russia took Crimea and installed their agents to lead a separatist movement in the east that is now supported outright by regular military forces after the UA military looked like ending it soon.

        To all of you who mention previous cases, reality is, most in Europe and a majority in the US would have been far happier if Putin would have just kept out and influenced UA without sending in the military. Because war costs money and everyone was happy to export to Russia, explore oil there and get rich.

        • No one in the Nato had any interest in investing in military bases

          Actually, not quite true, the U.S.A. has been trying to build a military installation in the Czech Republic a few years ago, later moving it to Poland, and the project was put on hiatus at the tame of Obama’s ascent, in particular because of some dismal outcomes of anti-rockets trials.
          Russians have been understandably upset about it.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 3rd September 2014, 10:59

            Meh, that was about Bush’ rocket defense plan actually (believe me, living over here in the Czech Republic I know all about it).
            Part of the reason it never went through was Obama changing plans with that, but the resistance in the Czech population and with politicians to give the US freedom in what kind, how many and where they wanted to have military personell over here, as well as the (normal for the US) rule they would not be subject to Czech courts delayed and soured such a deal too.

            But that is quite a few years ago when we are talking about “now” or “currently” IMO @ph

      • How does US forreign policy, whatever it is, justify that Russia annexes part of another sovereign state?

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 3rd September 2014, 7:34

      US this, US that! Ukraine’s neighbors that joined EU improved their well-being but their corrupt leader Yanukovich did not want to join EU in favor of an alliance with Russia and Belarus, led by the former…

      Ukrainian (at least Westerns) ousted the president and Putin, not US, sent his troops to occupy Crimea and bluntly said “there are not Russian troops” making the whole world look like fools!

      I’m sick and tired of people thinking all the problems in the world are “Made In America” like the US is the home of bad boys and everybody else are great guys, including Vladmir Putin.

    • MaroonJack (@maroonjack) said on 3rd September 2014, 11:49

      The fact that the world allowed US to invade another country without a good reason doesn’t mean we should allow others to do the same. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Sure, US set a pretty bad precedent. That doesn’t mean it was a good thing then and it sure doesn’t mean it’s a good thing now.

  4. Jay Menon (@jaymenon10) said on 3rd September 2014, 0:52

    “Note Fernando’s reluctance to refer to his former team-mate as ‘Lewis’. Some rivalries, it seems, never entirely fade away”

    A bit of a cheap shot from the Sky article. I can remember Fernando referring to Lewis on first name basis countless number of times…and I think he has reiterated on more than a few occassions that the issue in 07 was not with Lewis, but with Ron.

    On COTD, I agree with all the points, but I were a manufacturer looking for technological innovation, I would pick WEC, because it allows different technologies to compete, which I find very exciting, however, the WEC does not give you the same “glamour” that F1 does. From a product marketing perspective, F1 still offers the better showcase.

    • Colossal Squid (@colossal-squid) said on 3rd September 2014, 1:15

      Yeah, throughout their coverage lately Sky seem to stir the pot and make or insinuate controversy at every possible opportunity. It’s getting more than a little tiring.

      • William Stuart (@williamstuart) said on 3rd September 2014, 2:01

        It’s a shame as well that the BBC F1 coverage has gone downhill so much so quickly. DC and Ben Edwards are always a little bit slower to cotton on to what’s happening out there. I also used to love watching the build up to the races with Jake Humphreys, Eddie and DC, they had a great team in them that worked well together, I think that the BBC felt the Had to get a team which represented both sexes in their (rightly so) but Suzi Perry is the wrong person for the job. In a big to counter mesogynism, it seems like they have simply chosen Suzi Perry because she is attractive, not because she’s knowledge about F1. That’s surely exactly what we want to avoid, and with Gary Anderson they had a very knowledgable presenter who could get into the technical details more than any of the others and more eloquently, however it seems the BBC want to carry on dumbing it down.

        • William Stuart (@williamstuart) said on 3rd September 2014, 2:02

          Oops *the BBC felt they

        • Paul (@frankjaeger) said on 3rd September 2014, 10:11

          @williamstuart The BBC is heading to rock bottom. The Jake Humphreys, EJ & DC dynamic was good, but Suzi Perry is quite honestly clueless. The pitwalk at Spa just recently was hemmed by a mic failure of some sort, it was so sketchy and not worthy of quality programming. The race commentary is rather ok but the BBC is crying out for new anchors. Myself, I’d switch McKenzie and Perry around, try to bring back Humphrey’s or find another solid anchor and keep DC & EJ.

          • William Stuart (@williamstuart) said on 3rd September 2014, 14:14

            Exactly, it seems almost like the BBC are unwilling to get behind F1, the result of the races are often the third or fourth most prominent article on the main sport page, often out shadowed by football news or build up to football matches (not even live or just finished football matches either). This disillusionment probably started by the extortionate rates the FOM charge for coverage, leaving a bad taste in the mouth with the top brass at the BBC.

        • Jack (@jackisthestig) said on 3rd September 2014, 11:41

          I like DC as a pundit but alongside Ben Edwards as commentator it’s a bit of a bore fest. Alongside someone a little more colourful and outspoken like John Watson or even Tim Harvey on the BTCC coverage, Edwards is quite good, giving a nice balance. It seems a shame that Coulthard is still commentating while the brilliant Charlie Cox is out of work, the BBC having lost the Moto GP coverage.

          • William Stuart (@williamstuart) said on 3rd September 2014, 14:08

            On an off point, I really like the look of BTCC, i’ve never properly followed it, but with the insane 31 car grid they have this year it looks like good fun. The cars also look and sound great, but the series has next to no advertising so I often miss the races being such a casual follower of it.

      • deanmachine (@deanmachine) said on 3rd September 2014, 3:04

        I sat down to watch the F1 show this afternoon and couldn’t make my way through it with all the stirring the pot Sky were doing, Murray Walker at least did say the whole thing was ridiculous.

    • Nick (@npf1) said on 3rd September 2014, 3:56

      Of course, it’s hard for Sky to google and find this video one the Tube of You. Vettel is not the same level as Lewis

  5. Adam Hardwick (@fluxsource) said on 3rd September 2014, 1:06

    How strange – Renault want to change the rules now that the rules (which we previously agreed to by all) highlight how massively they’ve screwed up.

    Tarmac around Parabolica, unfreezing the engine freeze – it seems F1 feels that living with the consequences of your mistakes isn’t something that should feature in F1.

    • William Stuart (@williamstuart) said on 3rd September 2014, 2:03

      Bring back Qually engines!!!! Then focus on efficiency with the race engines

    • deanmachine (@deanmachine) said on 3rd September 2014, 3:07

      I don’t really agree with an engine freeze though, how are you suppose to develop technology without changing parts? If we could just come up with a way that the engine manufacturers won’t spend a stupid amount on it and have free(er) engines. Idk, maybe I’m just missing high rev limits a bit much.

    • TMF (@tmf42) said on 3rd September 2014, 9:09

      Agree that Renault doesn’t have any leverage and they should just live with it. But still there should be a discussion about this. In a few years when all the parts are frozen they need to come up with a new idea or again fall back behind WEC as an engineering platform. Also Honda joining 1 year later might be an unfair advantage for them if they can utilise the data they might receive from McLaren already. And there are a few other variables that weren’t known at the time they made the V6 compromise, so all in all it wouldn’t hurt to talk things over now that everyone knows what the new era means.

  6. Bazza Spock (@bazza-spock) said on 3rd September 2014, 1:36

    The ice bucket thing got old very, very quickly but Dennis’ one could have been awesome. It should have been a huge bucket mechanically tipped up from above, out of shot — totally drenching Ron and his sweet desk. Just like on TV!

    Re Russia, F1 is going to look extremely bad if they go ahead with this race. This is entirely in a different league to what was going on in Bahrain.

  7. “Everyone would like to have Ross or would like to see Ross back at Ferrari.”

    I can think of 10 teams that “Don’t” want to see Ross back in the Ferrari Garage . :)

    Fernando must be praying it is so.

  8. Vijay Mallya looks to be in financial poo ,

    Does this mean that FI F1 Team may soon be up for adoption soon ?

  9. MtlRacer (@mtlracer) said on 3rd September 2014, 5:38

    Best thing about Max Verstappen – apart from the odd exception,he raced in mutli-manufacturer classes exclusively. That’s how talent rises.

    When comparing drivers, isn’t it much easier if they all have the same equipment?
    Not to mention, a driver who always leads isn’t learning much race-craft, so their ability to perform in tougher categories becomes an issue.
    Don’t get me wrong, I wish Max all the best. If he does well, it’s promising for the Canadian Lance Stroll, part of the Ferrari driver academy and currently leading the Italian F4 championship. Touch to follow that series from Canada, but seems interesting with the reverse grid for some starts.

  10. Irejag (@irejag) said on 3rd September 2014, 5:46

    I hate to say this so bluntly, but if this going to end, Putin needs to assassinated.

    • I think he would be happy to remake the USSR in some form or die trying. Sporting events and sanctions may just be static in his grand scheme.

      I will be happy to tune out the politics and enjoy the race Sunday.

  11. JCost (@jcost) said on 3rd September 2014, 7:35

    Thanks for the COTD :)

  12. Mika (@petrucci) said on 3rd September 2014, 7:36

    I don’t recall any appetite for political interference of F1 with what was going at Bahrain. The only reason they cancelled the event was safety. Sports and politics don’t match. At least, don’t differentiate oil from natural gas and treat them equally.

    • There was a huge debate everywhere, including this side, for at least consecutive years about the situation in Bahrain.

      The difference between Bahrain and Russia is that it’s the EU imposing sanctions, which F1 would have to abide by, rather than F1 having to take a stance independently.

  13. Sridhar said on 3rd September 2014, 8:17

    Alonso is right in staying put. He can deliberate over this keep in next years Honda track record. However Ferrari should consider taking a young driver and give him the FP1 runs to prepare for the eventuality of filling in the vacuum left by Alo and kimi post 2015. One of the seats should go to the untested upcoming star. Frankly I don’t foresee Hulk coming alongside Vet in 2016.

  14. socksolid (@socksolid) said on 3rd September 2014, 9:34

    I’m getting a virus warning on this site with avast:
    URL hxxp://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/plugins/buddypress/bp-themes/bp-default/_inc/global.js?ver=2.0.2
    Infection JS:Includer-BFY [Trj]

    Anyone else getting this?

  15. nivek252 (@nivek252) said on 3rd September 2014, 10:27

    Fair play to Ron Dennis, not many people would do the Ice bucket challenge in a suit!!

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.