In the round-up: FIA president Jean Todt rejects calls by Bernie Ecclestone to give rules breaks to Mercedes’ rival manufacturers to allow them to catch up.
Links
Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.
Analysis: F1's first step to brave new world (Motorsport)
"Todt has little time for a suggestion from Ecclestone that power unit performance be capped to allow rivals to catch Mercedes. 'Sometimes I am amazed. Why don't we cap aerodynamics? I wish people would think more sometimes.'"
Back from the brink - Q&A with Marussia’s Booth and Lowdon (F1)
"I think now we’ve got a fairly senior technical management team in place and I think it’s under consideration as to which is the best way forward. The end goal is to have the best possible result at the end of 2016 and into 2017."
FIA confirms start clampdown with restrictions for Belgian GP (Adam Cooper's F1 Blog)
"(The) rule will enforced more rigorously with “the aim of ensuring that drivers will be solely responsible for preparing for race starts.”"
Hamilton backs F1 start rule changes (Autosport)
"For me the best starts were when I was in Formula 3 and you had a normal clutch."
Hulkenberg: Le Mans win will let me shine in F1 (Crash)
"I've done Le Mans once now and I think it won't be the first and only time. I would want to do it again."
Force India target fourth in Constructors' Championship (Sky)
"We have to aim for fourth. Red Bull obviously are strong here, but there will be a lot of circuits going forward where we can outperform them"
"He's sensational quality. He's got to weather the storm at the moment and do well and get himself in a better situation in the future and start getting those wins again and put a championship campaign together."
"With the series we own, the Mexican NASCAR series, we sell about 100,000 tickets per year and with (the grand prix) we almost sold that in the first issue of tickets."
Top motorsport doctor warns on driver concussions (James Allen on F1)
Steve Olvey: "Ten to 15 years ago we used to say when a driver walked from a car, 'Oh he's OK, he's just had a concussion, but he’s OK'. Now we know from things that have happened in (ice) hockey, soccer and American football that repeated concussions too close together are very detrimental and can cause severe illness."
Tweets
Just had the privilege of driving this beauty at Monza. 1971 BRM P160 chassis 01 which won the thrilling Italian GP pic.twitter.com/dVdtnx3ijV
— Martin Brundle (@MBrundleF1) July 10, 2015
Mexico? Check. New McLaren livery? Check. Dog-slow Honda power unit? Check. #F12015 #F1 pic.twitter.com/c9lyQHaapA
— F1 Fanatic (@f1fanatic_co_uk) July 10, 2015
- Find more official F1 accounts to follow in the F1 Twitter Directory
Comment of the day
Bernie Ecclestone recently revealed he considered buying Wimbledon. What if he had?
There’d be no first week at Wimbledon because players outside the top 20 don’t really contribute to the show and make the sport look bad.
And any players that do compete can expect to be paid peanuts in prize money, since most money will have to be paid to Djokovic and Federer just to make sure they don’t quit the sport.
@Jackysteeg
From the forum
Happy birthday!
Happy birthday to Dougy_D, Joaqo, Pabs1, Tomd11 and Pawel!
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
“Not bad for a number two driver” were Mark Webber’s memorable words after he won the British Grand Prix five years ago today. Webber was unhappy at team mate Sebastian Vettel being given the latest example of the team’s front wing design.
rm
11th July 2015, 0:10
Err … we did “cap aerodynamics”. Is he actually this clueless?
Aficionado
11th July 2015, 0:30
Don’t criticize Jean Todt. No matter if your accusations are true or not, he’ll set his lawyers on you (a la Phillipe Streiff). But… yeah, he really does seem clueless, doesn’t he?
Eoin (@eoin16)
11th July 2015, 14:31
In fairness, something needed to be done about that Muppet Streiff. He was way out of line and I still wish the Schumacher family went after him like Todt did after he started running his mouth about Michaels condition. Streiff is just a nobody who was looking for attention and went too far.
Layercake
11th July 2015, 0:42
Mr Todt also had no problem with Merc being in the room as the engine rules were formulated, possibly having influence. He’s a man who can be bought and is acting like so.
anon
11th July 2015, 15:28
Layercake, all of the engine manufacturers were in the room at the same time as Mercedes when the new engine regulations were developed – they even published a list of the participants in the discussions, and it is because they published the list of the participants that it first became known that Honda were considering returning to F1 (when it was noted that Honda had sent an observer to the discussions, as had VW Group).
How, exactly, are Mercedes supposed to have ‘bought’ Todt in front of all of the other engine manufacturers, all of whom would have been fighting just as hard to influence the regulations and to push it in their preferred directions?
Newey has claimed that the VW Group, who participated in the initial discussions, influenced the initial outlines of the new engine package – he claimed that the original proposal to use an inline four cylinder engine based on the Global Race Engine format was initiated by VW Group, until they backed out following complaints from rival manufacturers who objected to VW’s advantage (VW having already developed a suitable Global Race Engine to work from when the others would be starting from scratch).
After that, the change in engine format from an inline four cylinder engine to a V6 engine was being heavily pushed by Ferrari, not Mercedes – equally, Ferrari were the party who pushed for the introduction of the V6 turbos to be pushed back by a year to 2014, so evidently there were times when other engine manufacturers could and did influence the regulations.
beneboy (@beneboy)
11th July 2015, 0:45
In the context he’s talking about, they didn’t.
At no point has one team been denied the opportunity to develop their aero while the other teams were allowed to develop theirs until they’d caught up.
Woody (@woodyd91)
11th July 2015, 5:30
Err….We didn’t.
Exactly, his comment was all about context of the suggestion from Bernie, Red Bull weren’t stopped from developing their car while other caught up, This is what Todt meant.
@HoHum (@hohum)
11th July 2015, 0:59
There is a big difference between restrictive regulations and a cap. Every race we see new wings or widgets, a cap would stop this from happening and would also stop all that money being spent on designing building and testing these new parts, so Totd has a very valid point, and given the choice between standard wing designs and standard engine designs, I’d go for standard wings every time.
knoxploration
11th July 2015, 20:38
Bernie is asking the wrong question. Why are we using a homologation rule that was specifically intended to regulate PARITY between engine manufacturers — remember, we specifically worked to bring the engines near each other in performance terms when homologation was introduced — to regulate DISPARITY between engine manufacturers now?
Either homologation and life-cycle management should be scrapped and manufacturers should be allowed to update their engines as often as they want, or the engines should be brought to parity.
To allow one manufacturer a major, multiple seasons-long advantage over all its rivals simply because it had the best engine at the start of the cycle is unfair and downright unsporting. And the rules as they stand do not allow rivals to do enough to try and catch up.
One hand is tied behind their back because they are limited as to which parts of the engine they can change and when; the other is tied behind their back because they have utterly inadequate testing time available to them with which to confirm the effect of any planned changes.
The real question here is why Jean Todt wants to see a completely unfair, unsporting situation retained for as long as possible?
Rajesh (@rajesh-raman-k)
11th July 2015, 20:52
just a question? Formula1 is a sport right. you are saying it is unsporting that mercedes developed the best engine? Engine is the heart of the racing. So whoever makes the better engine wins. As simple as that. Calling it unsporting is like saying Usain Bolt/any one of consecutively winning tennis stars are unsporting because they don’t let others win
Selbbin (@selbbin)
14th July 2015, 6:18
Mercedes had the best engine in the V8 era too, but did not dominate. McLaren, being the works team until 2010, was highly competitive but didn’t win the constructor’s. Even in 2012 without being the works team McLaren was fastest packing Mercedes power. Renault had a slower engine, but Red Bull made it work for them by focusing on cornering speed, not straight line. Competition was closer, until the 2013 run of wins.
The engine isn’t everything. Sure, mapping and all that contributes greatly, especially now, and being a works team helps a lot, but you still need the best gears, gear ratio, brakes, aero design, cooling, suspension, etc etc. The Ferrari engine is good, and has won a race, but their package is still lacking compared to Mercedes. Also, there are three other teams packing Mercedes power, yet Renault (when they work) and Ferrari powered cars can beat them. Only Mercedes works, because of the package as a whole and the integration of the unit, dominates with Mercedes power.
Solo (@solo)
16th July 2015, 22:16
Renault engine wasn’t slower. The Red Bull car was slower at top speeds because of aerodynamic drag. Other teams with Renault engines got a lot higher top speeds.
Also the Renault engine was very compact and less thirsty.
Merc had the best engine when the V8 were initialize freeze but Renault was given special license to update their engine for competition purposes. After that the Renault engine was as i said above. To me that was quite crazy. Merc was punished basically for doing a better job but anyway the engines were fully freeze so the FIA couldn’t allow a big advantage to be locked.
Now they are not fully freeze. There are plenty of ways to find performance so it’s ridiculous to want to give extra advantages to the teams left behind.
grat
14th July 2015, 18:35
Really? So all the teams are still using the aero parts from Melbourne on their cars?
Wow… and no one noticed.
Impressive.
celeste (@celeste)
11th July 2015, 1:15
I still think that a great reallity show will be to send all old retired drivers to an island in the middle of nowhere and do a Suvivor kind of show..
HK (@me4me)
11th July 2015, 10:31
@celeste, wait what? I would totally watch that!
In a view years time we’d have:
Maldonado to Kimi: let me show you how to make fire.
Kimi: Leave me alone! I know what i’m doing!
Jason Cheung (@scorer)
11th July 2015, 2:37
Add some points to the COTD.
If Bernie bought Wimbledon. The tennis sport will be in a new era.
Only specific brand of racket is allowed to use throughout the whole series of championship.
Only 4 rackets in total is allowed to use throughout the whole series of championship.
Players are not allowed to drink water during the break of the match.
Players are not allowed to do training privately after the match.
Players are not allowed to get any instructions from the coach for service ball.
Players are not allowed to do any dummy swing during the match.
ben (@djdapimp)
11th July 2015, 3:30
tennis will become a team sport
team adidas, nike, wilson etc..
jack
11th July 2015, 4:26
This is unfair, BE didnt put most of theese regulations in. many are cost restrictive measures anyway.
petebaldwin (@)
11th July 2015, 21:13
Yeah Jack is right, Bernie wouldn’t change the rules, he’d just ensure that 100% of the money tennis generate went to himself. He’d then charge Wimbledon millions to host tennis matches and would pay his favourite players more than then winners. Over a few years, Wimbledon, US Open and other well known tournaments would disappear and we’d be watching the Qatar Open instead.
There wouldn’t be any wildcard entries or players below the top 20 or 30 because Bernie doesn’t want anyone around with begging bowls… Tennis would also be immediately pulled from all forms of social media to ensure that it was only marked at those who could afford Rolex Watches. Anything aimed at appealing to younger people would be stopped also as young people don’t have an interest in investment banking.
Kingshark (@kingshark)
11th July 2015, 8:10
@scorer
Don’t forget that the tennis rackets are incredibly fragile and degrade very quickly; so each player has to make at least one mandatory racket change from the “soft rackets” (more peak performance, less durability) to the “hard rackets” (more durability, less peak performance). The tennis players have a limited amount of rackets, and those who qualified for the tournament in the top 10 are required to start their first game with the same racket they qualified on.
I can’t think of an analogy for DRS yet. :P
Strontium (@strontium)
11th July 2015, 8:47
@kingshark racquets automatically widen if the ball travels across the court in under a second
salcrich
11th July 2015, 9:23
@kingshark when the receiving player gets within 1 metre of the net he is allowed a free volley!
salcrich
11th July 2015, 9:27
@kingshark modify last post – when the receiving player gets within 1 metre of the net he is allowed a free passing shot (down the line)
rsp123 (@rsp123)
11th July 2015, 8:17
You would only be able to watch tennis if you had Sky, as the rights would have been sold to them. Ticket prices at Wimbledon would be thousands per day. Players would have to pay a fee to contest tournaments, and there would be a limited grid – sorry, pool – of players authorized to compete.
Maybe the existing tennis authority should be running F1…?
spoutnik (@spoutnik)
12th July 2015, 14:22
– Pay players lowering the overall quality
– Maldonado destroying the net every two matches
– Large run-off areas, the public won’t see the ball anymore
– Tilke courts
– Virtual Safety Ball
– Court entry at 3kph max
– Penalties for both feets crossing the lines
– Starting from the back of the court in case of racket change
– Mandatory shoe-stop
MtlRacer (@mtlracer)
11th July 2015, 6:51
Yesterday’s round-up had Lawrence Stroll interested in Williams, but it seems much more likely that he’s part of the investors buying 10 percent of Ferrari mentioned in this article: Ferrari IPO Filing to Come in Days, Fiat Chrysler CEO Says
AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse)
11th July 2015, 6:52
So if you mention the word “tyre” or “start” on the way to the grid, you can immediately line up a few places further back?
I appreciate the idea of having driver-controlled, and therefore unpredictable starts, but I really dislike these radio ban rules.
LyndaGreen
11th July 2015, 14:23
@adrianmorse
so do i, i love hearing the team radio communications & i fear that with these new batch of restrictions we are now hardly going to hear any at all :(
yet more over-regulation, no other racing category has these stupid restrictions so why should f1?
if you don’t like hearing these team radio comm’s then go watch gp3 or something where we don’t hear them, i hate having f1 ruined with crap rule restrictions like this just to please those who don’t fully understand it.
Bullfrog (@bullfrog)
11th July 2015, 20:28
Well we had a pretty exciting start at Silverstone with the old rules.
If we now have cars stranded on the grid and other cars piling into them, not so good. At Spa, of all places. Not renowned for its safe, uneventful starts.
I just hope we’re not starting the old debate about closed cockpits again in a few weeks.
Malik (@)
11th July 2015, 8:00
If Mark Webber becomes a team principal, we will forget how Christian Horner was a whiner compared to him :)
ColdFly F1 (@)
11th July 2015, 8:45
One would almost think that Mark has released a book and needs some publicity ;)
I always had a liking for Mark when he was in F1, but now he becomes as bitter and ‘know-better’ as JV (but without the WDC title).
Fletch (@fletchuk)
11th July 2015, 14:22
That’s a perfect comment right there :)
Bolide (@mim5)
11th July 2015, 9:12
Mark would make a good team principal, and I think most of what he said is true. I don’t see how just because you don’t agree with him it makes him a whiner. I could bet that the next time we have a story about Horner or Redbull someone will be quick to comment how they should stop whining and get on with it.
paul
11th July 2015, 9:52
JPM also spoke up, but no one accused him of being a whiner….
ColdFly F1 (@)
11th July 2015, 9:01
I never understood why there was not more fan uprising and discussion when we had the previous engine freeze. Engines were virtually frozen from the 2006 Japanese GP until the end of 2013. We did not complain back then as much as we are complaining now.
And on top of that the FIA allowed the weaker engine manufacturers to catch-up. How is that encouraging world class engineering, when a competitor gets a free joker when you outsmarted them. To be honest it is impressive that Mercedes stayed in F1 during that period of ‘abuse’ (probably didn’t have a drinks business to fall back on).
As F1 is an engineering sport in the first place, it should minimise a freeze. There should only be a clear set of rules that applies to everybody.
But in any case the last thing they should do is allow weaker teams to catch up without awarding others the same freedom.
Kimiwillbeback
11th July 2015, 10:28
The reason the fans didn’t complain from 2006 to 2013 is that the engines were more or less equal. Each year we had winners using Ferrari engines, Mercedes engines and Renault engines. Sure the Renault was lacking a bit of horsepower but it could compete.
But now we have a different situation and the way it has come about is a little bit disturbing. Ecclestone has repeated several times that Mercedes knew the new engine format earlier than the other manufacturers and had an advantage. I believe this as I think this was a way for F1 to tempt Mercedes back into F1.
Secondly we have this token system and an engine freeze on immature technology. I’ve been following F1 for longer than I like to think about and I have seen teams with big advantages. McLaren in the late eighties, Williams in 92 and 93. McLaren in 98, and Ferrari in 2002 and 2004. But none of these periods of dominance can be compared to what we have now. I’ll give you an example. In 98 McLaren had an advantage of over 1 second in qualifying at the start of the season. One third into the season Ferrari was snapping at their heels. The reason for this was of course they were allowed to develop and compete.
Now we all know Mercedes will keep their advantage through this season and probably next season too as their competitors are hamstrung by the regulations. It was never like this before 2013 as the teams were free to develop aerodynamics during the season.
It doesn’t help to cut costs if you at the same time loose more revenue than you save. That’s the dilemma for F1these days, they loose fans because there’s no competition and no unpredictability.
For the first time in 30 years I don’t have to see the races, needless to say my wife loves the new F1. Ha ha
mark p
11th July 2015, 18:10
98 was a great example of one team doing a better job but others being free to attempt to catch up. There is no guarantee but at least the chance is given. Merc fairly got an engine advantage but others can only attempt to close up in a restricted manner. Only fair to let them all just go for it but then the other issue is cost. Thing is as tokens are so precious they only put them on when they are sure they have got the most out of the development but the cost is the same as no token restriction as they may design many different parts that are never raced only tested but still carry the same cost. Cost is the same but racing suffers. Just let them bring any engine parts they want at anytime no limits. If Merc are still in front only then have they done the better job, for now they got the 1st draft right but it is ring fenced.
I suppose Ferrari engines could leave F1 to be replaced by an Alfa Romeo engine that is how Ferrari would design the engine knowing what they know now. The Alfa engine can then be sponsored by Ferrari so in effect Ferrari get another chance.
grat
14th July 2015, 18:36
Although Renault won more races with their V8 than the other two manufacturers combined– starting right after the last round of “reliability” fixes that Renault petitioned for and got.
Solo (@solo)
16th July 2015, 22:29
Mercedes didn’t knew the engine format any faster than anybody else. This is all a pile of horseshιt. And i do not know what people like you are trying to achieve by spreading lies.
Mercedes wasn’t even the one who fist pushed for a new engine.
All manufacturers were in the meetings, everyone was there when the final decisions took place.
Renault and the VW group pushed for smaller 4 cylinder engines first but Ferrari thought such engines are too small and of no interest to them since they make supercars, so they threw there weight around, Renault threatened to leave the sport if the V8 remained and the FIA ended up with a compromise with the V6. That is all. In none of this was Mercedes in the leading role of pushing for anything. Renault and Ferrari were.
nihale
11th July 2015, 9:54
Drivers on changing the weekend format:
– “If this format is the same for the next seven years, I don’t think I could take that!” LH
– “Maybe we should think about the real problems – like helmet designs!” SV
ireni
11th July 2015, 10:00
http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-website/en/latest/features/2015/7/rain-dance—onboard-with-the-best-at-silverstone.html
On-board action from Silverstone: Hamilton-Rosberg-Raikkonen-Vettel on the same lap. Ferrari going all out of shape, as Vettel pushes even harder than Raikkonen. I have to say I have tremendous respect for Vettel after watching this. Mercedes looks calmer, but Rosberg goes out, while Raikkonen is also catching his car a couple of times. Good action.
Nase (@)
11th July 2015, 13:27
@ireni
I can’t open that link. :(
Could it be hidden behind a pay wall?
ireni
11th July 2015, 14:54
There is a silly restriction if you are not in UK I think.
There is some part from this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oPCmf8v6sk
Nase (@)
11th July 2015, 20:23
@ireni
Thanks for the link, unfortunately that’s the part I already knew (even though it’s awesome). I’m actually very curious about the Rosberg vs. Hamilton bit. Do I have to move to the UK to watch it? ._.
PJ (@)
11th July 2015, 11:00
I agree.
The power unite manufacturers all knew what the design parameters would be for 2014. Mercedes did a better job than everybody else and deserve their success.
You don’t change the rules just because one manufacturer has done a better job than everybody else; that goes against what a sport is supposed to be in the first place, a competition to see who can perform best.
PJ (@)
11th July 2015, 11:01
“The power unit manufacturers”
(no edit function available)
Eric Morman (@lethalnz)
11th July 2015, 13:40
they do change the rules when they want, look at RBR with the double diffuser which they perfected to be brilliant, engine mapping, no more,
they certainly can change things if they please, a lot depends on who is complaining and who is threatening to leave at the times.
what is need is the to go back to the basics like the old single layer front wing attached to the nose and smooth out the rear of the car till no turbulent are formed for when the new wider tires appear, anything to make it easier for a car to follow and make a pass.
another thought is: winners next race will have their tries chosen by the public that they have to run on in the next race. i know a lot of Ham hatters would love to do that…
GT Racer (@gt-racer)
12th July 2015, 0:19
@lethalnz
There never going to get rid of turbulent air, Its impossible because any object traveling through air will create a wake behind it.
Its a mis-conception that wings & aerodynamics created turbulent air & that moving away from wings/aerodynamics will do away with turbulent air.
You could take all the wings off the car & go to full ground effects & turbulent air would still exist. Turbulent air existed before wings & aerodynamics, Its what generated the slipstream that used to make the pre-wing slip-streaming races at Monza the classics many consider them to be.
The thing that made/makes the turbulent air a problem is when the cars started to become reliant on airflow to generate grip via aerodynamics. As soon as the cars sprouted wings, Front wings especially the turbulent air that had always existed started to become an issue because the airflow across the front wing was been disrupted & therefore the front wing wasn’t generating the downforce it was designed to generate.
The only way of ‘fixing’ the turbulent air problem is to make the cars less reliant on grip generated via the front wings & from the sounds of it thats exactly what there planning for 2017. Wider, gripper tyres & ground effects.
The ground effects idea would be especially effective if they extended the floor & sidepods forward so that the underwing could generate more grip towards the front of the car.
Take this example from 1982 for example-
http://didier.andlauer.free.fr/F1/saison_1982/voitures_1982/mclaren_1982.jpg
The sidepods extend much further forward than today with a much wider floor area towards the front of the car, This was done to maximize the amount of grip the underwing was generating towards the front of the car…. also no front wing by design because the underwing was generating enough grip to not require one.
GT Racer (@gt-racer)
12th July 2015, 0:20
I actually think a simple way of moving reliance away from the front wing would actually be to allow more bodywork under the nose, Let them extend the floor forward & reintroduce the splitters that used to be under the front wings & extend from the end-plates in the early 90s. These generated downforce & were not as affected by the turbulent air as the main wing flaps are.
You can see the bits i’m on about under the front wing in this image-
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6207/6089738705_ab36c1007f_o.jpg
and how far back they extended in this image-
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Williams_FW14B_front-left_Donington_Grand_Prix_Collection.jpg
They were also what generated a fair portion of the sparks we used to see back then-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G7OC8gpQhE
Eric Morman (@lethalnz)
12th July 2015, 6:07
cheers for that GT Racer, most informant, great feed back thanks.
liked the shape of the McLaren back then, with very few changes they look like it is possible to incorporate those sort of lines/shape into the existing cars.
coefficient (@coefficient)
11th July 2015, 13:30
If Bernie bought Wimbledon by now the players would have a button on their rackets and the tracking player would be able to press it to lower the net if he got within a game of equalising.
LyndaGreen
11th July 2015, 14:27
so basically if you leave the pits & your clutch bite point is wrong you have to sit on the grid for 20+ minutes knowing your going to get a crap start.
how long before this silly rule causes a massive start line accident which could have been avoided if they had been allowed to fix the start settings?
people complain about over-regualtion in f1 while at the same time cheering crap rules like this which is also over-regulation. f1 is a highly technical sport and i love that aspect of it, if you don’t like the technical side or hearing team radio then just go watch something else & leave f1 to those who actually understand & appreciate it!
anon
11th July 2015, 15:48
I think that part of it is the romantic fantasy that some individuals like to tell themselves about the history of the sport, where the drivers are essentially turned into idealised heroes and the engineers and mechanics are essentially written out of the story because they don’t fit the heroic narrative.
As you say, we see a strange relationship where some fans decry the tightness of the regulations and holding back progress, whilst at the same time demanding that regulations are brought in to stop certain activities and to reverse the tide of technology.
We see complaints about radio traffic when two way radios have been in F1 since at least the 1970’s, or a demand to eliminate semi automatic transmissions and to revert to manual H pattern gearboxes when Lotus was experimenting with semi automatic transmissions in the 1950’s. It seems to be more the case that people want the sport to be ossified to how it was in their youth, and cannot accept that both the sport and the wider world has moved on since then.
David Goure
12th July 2015, 14:34
Completely agree; although incidentally, a complete removal of Christmas music would follow (which I’m not really against, it’s annoying as hell) as there’s been maybe one new song since the 1950s. Talk about ossified.
verstappen (@verstappen)
11th July 2015, 23:49
Re: Manor
Finally some coverage. But what a strange first question about the ‘all new driver line-up’.
And the answer as well: nothing about Jules’ family but about how bad it felt for the team.
SauberS1 (@saubers1)
12th July 2015, 0:07
Hamilton’s statement… :D
jay
12th July 2015, 0:42
Lewis DESERVES his 3 years in the sun with the current regulations. I am glad he’s getting to show what he can do with a competent team. His past team already cost him probably 2 additional championships in 2007 and 2012. Seb had 4 years in a row and now its Lewis’ turn. 2017 gives an opportunity for changes.
coefficient (@coefficient)
12th July 2015, 10:14
Funny, I thought Flavio Briatore was Italian for tax evasion.