In the round-up: The Strategy Group’s plan to bring back refuelling in 2017 is likely to face strong opposition.
Links
Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.
F1's refuelling proposals meet major opposition (BBC)
"None of the teams are in favour of refuelling, which was banned on grounds of cost, safety and because it reduced the amount of on-track overtaking."
Ricciardo reveals costly engine error (F1i)
"Pit wall thought I was in a different engine mode, which I wasn’t, so then when they’ve told me to make the standard change it’s put us out of the correct one."
Pirelli ready to bid for new F1 contract (Reuters)
"I think the responsibility to choose the tyres remains, and has to remain, in our hands because we don’t want our tyres not to be used properly."
Fernando Alonso laments 'too fragile' McLaren after Q2 issue (ESPN)
"Next time we need to improve performance and reliability because we are a bit too fragile at the moment."
Monaco traffic 'worst it has been' (Autosport)
"People were going out of the pit lane, doing a very slow outlap, while you were on a fast lap, and they tried to close the door at every single braking point."
Bernie Ecclestone reveals plans for Formula One customer cars (The Guardian)
"Hamilton has denied suggestions his globetrotting lifestyle has led to a lack of focus. 'I don’t need to think about that. I just do me, I don’t judge anyone.'"
Tweets
@f1fanaticlive @f1fanatic_co_uk jheres verstappens car beside me in fp3 pic.twitter.com/0NnyRF8gsm
— Akie (@darthsaku) May 23, 2015
Hardly a sell out for FP3. Lots of empty seats. #MonacoGP pic.twitter.com/L3c7TMLJYN
— Ben Hunt (@benjhunt) May 23, 2015
We will carry this message on the VJM08 as a tribute to our friend and colleague Charlie, who is no longer with us. pic.twitter.com/EmErIjBxdg
— Sahara Force India (@ForceIndiaF1) May 23, 2015
@NicolaBILD @LewisHamilton They are made by Thom Browne and will set you back $875 pic.twitter.com/azpey2zq0t
— William Locke (@LW_Locke) May 23, 2015
@alo_oficial amazing how positive you are. Idol !
— Nabil Jeffri (@nabiljeffri) May 23, 2015
By miles the most committed through t1 are the red bulls. Can only assume Ferrari and merc aren't on full beans yet.
— Sam White (@sglwhite) May 23, 2015
Remember, that lap from @LewisHamilton was jsut 1.5s off the all-time best round here! Wait for 2017 & 5s / lap faster… :) #excited
— MERCEDES AMG F1 (@MercedesAMGF1) May 23, 2015
Great battle between Binder and Markelov in #GP2. Unfortunately silly 'points for fastest lap' rule has stopped many others from racing.
— F1 Fanatic (@f1fanatic_co_uk) May 23, 2015
Well! I wasnt expecting that! From starting my 1st ever Monaco GP in P8 to start from the pit lane coz of not seeing a light. In Q1, run1.
— Carlos Sainz (@carlosainz) May 23, 2015
Made a mistake that cost me Q3. Starting 15 tomorrow with the 5 places penalty. #MonacoGP is a long race and tough race. All is possible 👍🇫🇷
— Romain Grosjean (@RGrosjean) May 23, 2015
- Find more official F1 accounts to follow in the F1 Twitter Directory
Comment of the day
Two different views on our recent poll on whether F1’s qualifying rules should be changed to prevent drivers from gaining an advantage by making a mistake in qualifying:
I can’t see how it is fair for someone to benefit from their mistake. It doesn’t matter whether or not it is deliberate. If a genuine mistake, it means you are good enough to do a clean lap at that speed and therefore should not impede a driver who can. I don’t think it will prevent good drivers from pushing harder.
In Austria, Hamilton made and error on his first lap and it was disallowed. He went harder on his second lap and he came off worse. That is what good drivers do. In Monaco, Rosberg was down on his previous lap time. How did he expect to make up that deficit then improve his time? he knew he couldn’t. He was not driving good enough on the lap and she should not have benefited from it.
Patrick
Qualifying should be all about finding the limit not being scared of a penalty. This rule will create more harm than good and for what? Even without the rule such situations occur only rarely, even at Monaco
I say it should stay as it is: a case-by-case review of the stewards. Over-regulation never works in my opinion in any field be it politics, economy or motorsport.
@Montreal95
Join in the debate and add your vote here:
From the forum
Happy birthday!
Happy birthday to Pete Walker, Driftin and Mallesh Magdum!
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 birthday to former F1 driver Ivan Capelli who is 52 today. The ex-Ferrari racer is now spearheading efforts to safeguard the future of the Italian Grand Prix.
David Pate (@tamedcowboy)
24th May 2015, 0:30
Maybe we should go back to drivers qualifying individually.
@HoHum (@hohum)
24th May 2015, 0:41
OK I’ll bite, why !?
Philip (@philipgb)
24th May 2015, 0:46
With track evolution and changing weather conditions you may as well flip a coin.
Finding track position and coping with traffic is a skill, we’ve had the same drivers start 1-3 every race. That’s not by chance.
@HoHum (@hohum)
24th May 2015, 0:55
Come to think of it an excellent opportunity for Bernie to “manage” the championship and ensure a multi-driver shootout for the WDC at the last race.
Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust)
24th May 2015, 9:08
Why not give the choice as to where they do their qualifying run up to the drivers in the order they completed the last race? So first place gets first choice, second place gets second choice … last place doesn’t have a choice. Doesn’t that solve the problem? Yes, that isn’t fair, but that does solve that problem. It is up to the driver to choose the best time to do their “sprint”. Of course, that means the people that didn’t do well in the previous race have to suffer with lesser times, while those who did well will gain a slight advantage, but is that any worse than a person on a “flying lap” suddenly being impeded by someone “slowing down” and then having to have lesser time than they would have otherwise got? Or is it any worse than someone who accelerates well having their start impeded by someone who accelerates poorly?
If something suddenly happens, say it rains, that’s something the drivers should have considered when choosing their spot for qualifying, and just like downforce, tyre choice, engine mapping, point to start braking, etc, a good choice pays off, and a poor choice hampers your chances of winning.
Dr. Jekyll (@dr-jekyll)
24th May 2015, 9:34
I have never been more interested or invested in the qualifying than I am now during these q1, q2, q3 sessions.
it makes qualifying interesting all the way down to p20-p16
It’s easy to complain about everything F1 does wrong and plan to do even worse in the future, but this is one aspect which I feel is the best it has ever been in F1
favomodo (@favomodo)
24th May 2015, 10:57
Couldn’t agree more!
frood19 (@frood19)
24th May 2015, 11:33
+1
although i liked the 1-hours/12 laps set up, it did often lead to a lack of action in the first part of the session. the current format solves many problems in a neat way.
Bullfrog (@bullfrog)
24th May 2015, 11:59
I think this year’s been really good, because there’s real competition to make the cut in Q1 & 2. In previous years there wasn’t much doubt who’d get knocked out.
Unfortunately we hardly ever see a full lap, but the excitement almost makes up for that. So does a well-produced side-by-side comparison of pole and 2nd-place laps (as David Coulthard or Martin Brundle often do) before the race.
It’s easy to say change it to one by one, like skiiing or something, so you can see everyone’s whole lap – but they’ve tried that and it just wasn’t right.
But the tyres have to change so they work more consistently – it’s maddening to watch all the teams sat in the garage because the track temperature is too low by 1 or 2 degrees. Or one of the stars yesterday (Perez) running out of fresh tyres before the end of qualifying.
@HoHum (@hohum)
24th May 2015, 0:40
I would have thought that Pirelli would have jumped at, nay insisted, on a chance to prove that they can actually make decent tyres, instead they seem to want to hide behind F1s requirement that they provide rubbish tyres. No matter what the advertising agencies say brand recognition is of no value if it is associated with a lousy product, just ask the brand managers why French cars and British Leyland brands have not been re-introduced into the US market, it takes a long time and a lot of effort to change a bad reputation.
No doubt Pirelli will blame the teams engineers for not being able to adjust the track temperature to suit the tyres.
jackal40 (@jackal40)
24th May 2015, 1:53
I’m sorry, but when I read “I think the responsibility to choose the tyres remains, and has to remain, in our hands because we don’t want our tyres not to be used properly.” I was dumbfounded.
Guess there’s no chance that one team might do better with the super soft where another does better with the soft on the same track? I’d be in favor of allowing the teams to two tires for a race and do away with the requirement to use two different tires in that race.
anon
24th May 2015, 7:49
@jackal40, Michelin do not seem to be pushing the idea of open choice in tyre compound either, so I wouldn’t necessarily just point the finger at Pirelli.
I would suspect that, whichever tyre manufacturer were to come into the sport, they would have caveats attached to open tyre choice – mainly because, when the choices go wrong, you know that the teams are more likely to lash out at the tyre suppliers rather than take any responsibility for their own choices.
BasCB (@bascb)
24th May 2015, 11:05
Clearly Pirelli are wary of seeing a repeat of teams overdoing it – re. Red Bull running supersofts and then complaining the tyres are rubbish when they don’t last!
Philip (@philipgb)
24th May 2015, 0:43
Why don’t the Hamilton critics ask if maybe his rivals are too focused on F1?
For some personalities like Schumacher or Vettel, an almost obsessive work ethic is what works for them. A singular focus and goal.
Hamilton is a totally different personality to this guys, he obviously draws energy and motivation from his other endeavours, they keep him grounded and motivated.
I detect a bit of envy on his critics behalf. Anyone who’s ever worked in a role that they just find easier than their coworkers will be familiar with the criticisms of their work ethic. Even if they are achieving more, just because they don’t look like they are working as hard.
dragoll (@dragoll)
24th May 2015, 2:21
@philipgb You raise a good point and I agree to a certain point. However, when you take your foot off the pedal because you have it sorted, at some point things will change and all of a sudden you may find yourself playing catchup. I think there is no doubt Hamilton is in a very comfortable space right now, and Rosberg is no match for him, but this won’t last forever, things change, especially in F1. Seb found out the hard way when F1 changed from an aero dominated competition to an engine dominated competition.
lockup (@)
24th May 2015, 9:56
What pedal did he take his foot off tho @dragoll?
It’s just an assumption isn’t it, that during a 3-week break they ought to do… what exactly?
It’s just that in Spain he and his engineers didn’t quite find a setup, then the team gave him some bad clutch/start settings and a bad stop, at a circuit they can’t pass at. I don’t think there’s any connection with his lifestyle; it was just Damon fretting a bit because he likes him, and is in a job where he has to find something to say all the time (which imo isn’t as easy as one might think).
dragoll (@dragoll)
24th May 2015, 10:14
@lockup I never said that Hamilton has taken the foot of the pedal, I was responding to @philipgb point about obsessive work ethic. I didn’t even mention anything about Spain either, so not sure where you got that from.
maarten.f1 (@)
24th May 2015, 6:27
@philipgb I don’t think there’s any reason to complain about Hamilton’s supposed lack of focus this season, he seems to be on fire and it’s definitely his championship to lose now. There have been times where I did feel his lifestyle got in the way of his ability to drive in Formula 1, but definitely not his last two seasons.
I don’t necessarily agree with his lifestyle, I admire Vettel’s work ethic much more, but if it works for him then that’s it, right?
Hilton
24th May 2015, 0:46
Real good to hear. Probably not true. At least not at the time they proposed refueling. They probably loved the idea then. Now they have seen how it is being received and are claiming it wouldn’t pass as an idea and basically because they are on the same page as us. Almost like they would like to be on the receiving end of a pat on the back. If they hold this position why are they going to waste time looking into it further and come out with further studies about it next month? Why did they pimp it and come out talking as if it were this grandiose idea when they proposed it and almost talk as if it was a favor that everybody had been calling out for it? The Strategy Group sucks.
@HoHum (@hohum)
24th May 2015, 0:47
So it seams even more likely that refueling was just another smokescreen to divert attention by the master of smoke and mirrors himself, Bernie in fact would like to replace racing with smoke and mirrors if he thought no one would notice.
@HoHum (@hohum)
24th May 2015, 0:51
seems
GT Racer (@gt-racer)
24th May 2015, 2:05
@hohum I actually just came here to post something similar.
I wrote this on Autosports forums just a bit ago-
dragoll (@dragoll)
24th May 2015, 2:44
@gt-racer I hope you are wrong, but the cynic in me tends to lean towards your thought lines. I do hope that the safety of pit lane personnel and drivers is at the forefront of the rule makers when implementing refueling in 2017.
Iestyn Davies (@fastiesty)
24th May 2015, 2:56
@dragoll Doubt anyone even thought of that.. doubt it will resurface again after this week ;). Kudos, the tactic works, be it in control of F1 or gossiping in the street.
maarten.f1 (@)
24th May 2015, 7:35
@gt-racer It’s just ridiculous enough to consider that to be the case, F1 is crazy like that.
It did strike me as odd how quickly Wolff came out saying that if it’s too expensive they won’t do it. But if this is really an actual thing they discussed, it means they’re making decisions on things without having researched the consequences. Makes me wonder what the point of these meetings are, you’d think they first do some research on the cost and other consequences before even considering to bring it up in the first place.
Iestyn Davies (@fastiesty)
24th May 2015, 2:57
@hohum A race? I never knew!
@HoHum (@hohum)
24th May 2015, 9:18
@fastiesty, let me find my rose-tinted glasses and I’ll tell you all about it.
David-A (@david-a)
24th May 2015, 1:16
COTD:
Who was driving the car? Nico or Britney?
Iestyn Davies (@fastiesty)
24th May 2015, 2:54
Haha, good question.. Nico when he’s on fire, Britney when he’s not.. ? @david-a
juan fanger (@juan-fanger)
24th May 2015, 3:47
So, Rosberg caused another yellow flag in qualifying. Is anyone clamoring to disqualify him from qualy this time?
Anyone?
@HoHum (@hohum)
24th May 2015, 9:14
Jenson might.
Matthew Coyne
24th May 2015, 10:43
Nico didn’t stand to gain anything from that yellow flag, so why should be disqualified? – as unfortunate as it is for Button it was of no relevance to Rosberg what Button was doing.
Last year he didn’t necessarily gain anything by bringing out the flags but he ensured he couldn’t lose something.. Pole position.
Key difference between the situation which you have conveniently overlooked.
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
24th May 2015, 3:57
“None of the teams are in favour of refuelling, which was banned on grounds of cost, safety and because it reduced the amount of on-track overtaking.” I think having all teams agreeing on something is enough grounds to go against it, refuelling shouldn’t have ever been dropped, and I hope that the “teams” (aka Merc Fer and RBR) won’t get away with everything they want again! Refuelling will make the cars more attractive, faster and critically for the top teams it will increase the chance of a problematic slow pit stop to rob them from totally monopolizing F1, Pitstop that have actually increased since Pirelli (that thing that’s the sole factor behind the overtaking we’ve got today.)
pxcmerc (@)
24th May 2015, 4:16
This whole kerfuffle was made to order. I saw this whole debacle coming down before the first season started. I don’t really see how any of this is a surprise to anyone. Maybe they should stop banning things and hurting the teams that have less money. Some times problems have causes nobody wants to acknowledge, and some times people come up with solutions that would not be acceptable unless everyone was on their knees begging for an answer.
I think if F1 wants to become interesting again, it needs to seriously limit the inputs from the big name manufacturers, and stop banning opportunities and risks that might actually give one of the smaller teams a possible measure of success. The fans need real competition, not a remedial lesson about the relationship between automakers and their customers (subservient).
PS, you won’t ever catch me at a dealer, I don’t need to see it on TV either.
cswilly (@cswilly)
24th May 2015, 5:38
HAM’s new sunglasses … when I first saw them I wondered why he was wearing Safety glasses–so ugly they were–signed an half-assed HAM fan.
MtlRacer (@mtlracer)
24th May 2015, 5:47
The refueling issue is a perfect example of how F1 management is terribly broken.
How in the world can the Strategy Group seriously put forward a proposal that all teams are against? And if it’s true it is a “diversion” from something else then we should all abandon this sport for it’s lack respect for the fans!
Tristan (@skipgamer)
24th May 2015, 8:07
The biggest question that makes no sense at all. I swear the journo’s are just as much to blame as the management for the state F1’s in. How regular commenters on the internet can have the sense to raise such questions, while the journo’s who are actually in a position to get an answer don’t is beyond me.
John H (@john-h)
24th May 2015, 8:03
Empty stands in qualifying too. I presume this is a ticket price thing and probably also due to lack of engine noise. Reverberating around the principality, it was sonething special to behold.
Personally I like the new sound and the tech, but I think for many many fans it’s an issue reading YouTube comments and the suchlike. Even Bernie is sometimes right.
@HoHum (@hohum)
24th May 2015, 9:25
I suspect it clashed with a lot of parties and promotions.
John H (@john-h)
24th May 2015, 11:40
Those boat types don’t have a blue plastic seat ticket.
Seriously though, having watched qualifying at Monaco since 1991, I can’t recall such empty stands for qualifying.
paulguitar (@paulguitar)
24th May 2015, 10:26
@john-h
I suspect you are correct. Whilst it is possible to admire and respect the tech involved with these cars, there seems little point in being there as the visceral thrill is mostly gone and the tech in many ways, out of slight.
I have long wanted to go to Monaco, it being one of the few European events I have not attended live, but I won’t do it with these cars. the thought of seeing and hearing one of these wheezing up the hill does not really fill me with excitement………
ColdFly F1 (@)
24th May 2015, 10:07
Sunday time, feedback time! @keithcollantine:
– COTD should be just that; not CsOTD. Now it feels that you want to drag a discussion into the next day!
– Why oh why did you publish that sunglasses tweet by the Bild lady? IMO not even remotely relevant (especially since I opted for the ad free version of this site).
I know it is your blog/site, and I think it is the best by far. But just want to give some feedback.
iFelix (@ifelix)
24th May 2015, 11:11
It’s interesting that majority of the drivers I have heard their opinion, including those who we consider good racers and overtakers (Hamilton, Raikonnen, Button, Alonso,…) are in favour of refuelling but some team principals are against it.
GT Racer (@gt-racer)
24th May 2015, 11:39
@ifelix The drivers just want to go faster & they see refueling as a way to do that. It was the same back in 2007 where many of the drivers didn’t want traction control banned because it would slow them down.
Teams have the costs to consider & they know how it alters the way they go racing & how they ask drivers to race which is why your getting comments from teams that they don’t think it will improve the racing.