Ecclestone hails Ferrari’s 2015 resurgence

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Bernie Ecclestone says the revival of Ferrari has been the highlight of the 2015 season.

Tweets

Comment of the day

Does the FIA’s incoming ban on under-18s driving in F1 look silly given the success Max Verstappen has enjoyed this year? @Thebladerunner says no:

I made the comment last year that under 18s shouldn’t be allowed into the sport and stand by it.

The life of every driver is important but if – heaven forbid – a ‘child’ was to be seriously injured or killed when driving an F1 car it would reflect very badly on the sport and the individual team they represented.
@Thebladerunner

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Carlos Santos, Nick and Andy Alexander!

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 Desire Wilson, the only woman to win a race for Formula One cars, who is 62 today.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

61 comments on “Ecclestone hails Ferrari’s 2015 resurgence”

  1. ColdFly F1 (@)
    26th November 2015, 0:10

    How to make an agreement and commit to nothing:

    Engine manufacturers () have agreed to provide a proposal that will seek to address several points

    1. Yes I didn’t saw it that way immediatly but you are right. I hope that this

      including agreeing a minimum number of teams to supply – thereby ensuring every team has access to a power unit – and reducing the cost of power units.

      Shall be resolved because the bickering last month was meaningless this is what actually can be achieved and hopefully the basis of this will make F1 run until 2017 with no RBR situations or teams going bankrupt, baby steps on the last subject.

      1. Well, yeah. I think that for 2016 arguably all teams had access to deals off course (although RBR made a mess of themselves by cancelling that without having secured a replacement deal) @peartree.

        This “agreement” really isn’t much more than an agreement to want to agree to something. That said, I think the car manufacturers will compromise in the end. But it will do nothing to solve the money issues at the far end of the grid, a difference of 7-10 million (approximately, compared to the numbers we have heard for power unit/drive train packages) will hardly save a team.

        The only thing that can do that is Bernie/FOM starting to pay out more to the smaller teams. Unlike he keeps saying, its not the big teams who have to agree with that, its his own company that should just be happy with taking a (slightly) less exhorbitant sum out of the sport.

        1. @bascb Yes, the money is not sufficient. I wanted to highlight the idea to come up with a rule that forces manufacturers to supply any team interested. I think this ruling avoids one outcome of implosion in F1. I think this is where the FIA and Bernie can start to play with the manufacturers in order to get what they want.

      2. thereby ensuring every team has access to a power unit

        The problem here is the inside of an engine is “top secret”, and the engine manufacturer has an expectation that the customer team won’t go “peaking” into what makes their engine “tick”. The problem with “ensuring every team has access to a power unit” is it doesn’t address the engine manufacturer’s right to protect their intellectual property. One would expect a customer team to sign a secrecy agreement, but what happens if the customer team refuses to sign? What then?

    2. @coldfly, And I can’t for the life of me understand why more noise is so prominent in the “Things to fix in F1” list.

      1. sigh,……still so prominent.

      2. @hohum Simple, people love more noise and that why. That is one of the reasons that they buy tickets; at least that’s what happens/happened in India.
        However I do understand your point as in F1 has larger issues to fix but there “Things to fix in F1” list depends on there priorities (read – earning money).

      3. They haven’t actually heard the effects of the planned changes to the exhausts. Is this an indication that they think it will make an insignificant difference? @hohum @coldfly @square-route

      4. Because the signature F1 sound (even FIA calls it that) was removed from the 2014 formula (again, even FIA says that).

        Sound is one element by which Formula 1 communicates with spectators. It is most certainly a large part of the on-circuit experience. Perhaps you do not recall that even drivers, principals, and fans were complaining about the neutered Formula H(ybrid) sound immediately upon the first race of 2014.

        If one’s F1 experience is limited to television viewing, the motorboat-like sound of the current Formula H(ybrid) “power unit” is not quite so obvious. On track and in the grandstands is a very different – and much worse – experience.

        1. These power units are getting louder, There already louder than they were a year ago & as Martin Brundle pointed out at the Brazilian Gp its now on the borderline of needing ear plugs again.

        2. F1 make louder sounds than last year (very nice to hear in real). All that noise drama is completely trivial and stupid. There are much more pressing matters right now.

          1. I have to chuckle at that. All of these “pressing matters” stem precisely and directly from the conversion of Formula 1 to Formula H(ybrid), and were correctly anticipated by the FIA (and probably all F1 engineers and principals) well-prior to 2014.

            “Noise drama” was one of those matters, and the FIA did discuss exactly that problem in its 2014 Formula One Power Unit Regulations (and then went on to dismiss it, whoops).

            Read it for yourself:

            http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/publication/file/FIA%20F1%20Power%20Unit%20leaflet.pdf

        3. the signature F1 sound

          Would this be the Cosworth DFV, the 3.0 V10, or the 2.4 V8? :)

          1. depends if that’s in a signature front engined or rear engined F1 car,
            with a signature high nose, low nose, or pointy nose.
            and if that is in a signature no wings, simple wings, complex wings car
            and if there are the signature wide, narrow, or grooved tyres.

  2. I think the comment of the day is neglecting all the junior motorsport leading up to Formula 1. These kids start in gokarts with no crash protection and work their way through a lot of other disciplines before having any hope of driving in F1 and they take a risk in all of them. I don’t know of any statistics for minors in motorsport accidents or really care to morbidly look up any incidents but we’re not going to stop them.

    As is it less tragic for an 18 year old to be mortally injured than a 17 year old? Kinda reminds me of this:

    https://youtu.be/TXedVafIgsw?t=53

    1. You are missing the point, F1 has a much further reach then any of the junior formulas. Kids hurt themselves all the time doing silly things, but it’s a story when they are on a world stage with expectation and responsibility.

      is it less tragic for an 18 year old to be mortally injured than a 17 year old?

      Is a politically-minded 17 yr old less responsible to vote then an apathetic 18 yr old?
      The 18 yr old can do it and the 17 yr old can’t. Thats the way the world works. In most countries, 18 is the time when you are responsible for yourself. Verstappen had to have Dad sign all the legal paperwork for him.
      F3 was booming this year because of all the people who wanted to try and emulate Max, result? Lots of dangerous crashes. If Max is making it look easy and every 17 yr old is thinking they can do the same thing, then it will get to the stage where rich kids with almost no prior experience in cars (like Verstappen) will buy a test and see if they can do it. Verstappen is the exception not the rule (I am really enjoying him this year though).
      I hate to use this as an example, but de Villota almost certainly shouldn’t have been driving that Marussia. Her results in other series were nowhere, and while that truck shouldn’t have been near the tarmac, it was probably the only thing for miles during a straight line run, and she managed to hit it. The team said there was nothing wrong with the car.
      It’s up to the teams not to give opportunities to kids who don’t deserve it, because of course they will say yes.

      As exciting and great as Verstappen’s been this year, there was absolutely no harm in doing a year of FR3.5. The only reason Red Bull brought him in earlier was to try and smash some records, that would’ve backfired one day.

      1. Is a politically-minded 17 yr old less responsible to vote then an apathetic 18 yr old?
        The 18 yr old can do it and the 17 yr old can’t. Thats the way the world works.

        Well, up until last year the way F1 worked was to allow 17-year-olds into F1. There have been exactly 0 precedents that would have one reconsider the situation. There have been exactly 0 17-year-olds allowed in F1 that haven’t been deemed ready for it. It was a knee-jerk reaction to raise the minimum age to 18.

        The only reason Red Bull brought him in earlier was to try and smash some records

        There’s a lot in your post I don’t agree with but this is the worst part of it. No, that was not the only reason. I don’t even think it was one of the main reasons. A number of parties were trying to sign Verstappen, the most notable were Mercedes and Red Bull. The main reason Verstappen is driving the STR is because it was the one thing RBR could promise him which Mercedes couldn’t: an immediate race seat in F1 – but make no mistake, if they considered it a risk, it wouldn’t have happened.

        You mention de Villota, and I fully agree she shouldn’t have been put in the car – but what does that have to do with the discussion about age limits? This example supports the very notion that allowing drivers into F1 should be handled on a case by case basis instead of imposing some rather arbitrary rules.

        1. Fair enough, the record thing was wrong. I stand by my statement that another year in the feeder series would have done him no harm, nevertheless, he’s proved he was ready for it this year (I was defending him after Monaco).
          The de Villota example was to show that teams shouldn’t put people in the car who aren’t ready for it, with the trend for drivers getting younger and younger, I doubt it would have stopped at Verstappen, and then how much further can it get before they have almost no experience (and therefore results) to show at all.
          Without the restriction, you’d just have to trust the teams know who they are putting in the car, and believe they are capable of it, which as Marussia have shown, might not be the case.

          There is lots of talk about preventative instead of reactionary measures for safety, this was clearly done by the FIA to absolve all blame for age-related safety issues. Like any smart organisation though, there should be some degree of flexibility, and hopefully they are able to look at things at a case-by-case basis, but then again, should that fail, the poor boy will have to wait a year..

          1. @mickey18

            with the trend for drivers getting younger and younger, I doubt it would have stopped at Verstappen

            I just don’t see how you come to this conclusion. There’s not really a trend – before Verstappen, the youngest driver to ever race in F1 was Alguersuari 6 years ago. Before that it was Thackwell, who debuted in 1980. Before that it was Rodriguez, who debuted in 1961.

            Given the above, I just don’t see the trend you’re alluding to. It shows that drivers under 20 have entered F1 throughout its history. Verstappen is a clear outlier – but one outlier doesn’t make a trend.

            Besides that, it’s only RBR who have brought in drivers under 20 the past 10 years and I think they’ve proven their good judgement – also in Verstappen’s case.

      2. @mickey18

        Yep kids hurt themselves doing silly things, may as well be something they love.

        Motorsport isn’t politics and voting isn’t comparable. No one has a license to vote, or drink, or have sex or anything else age related. We pick an arbitrary cut off point for them to save on the administration of assessing billions of peoples worthiness in partaking. There are plenty of 20, 30, 40 somethings etc… I wouldn’t even trust with the privileges of making a YouTube comment let alone choose a political leader.

        Race car driving critically assesses your ability every step of the way so age can be ruled out as a deciding factor.

        1. @philipgb @mattds

          It seems there is no convincing you. I was mainly playing the devils advocate here.

          kids hurt themselves doing silly things, may as well be something they love.

          I tend to agree with that. But I can’t blame the FIA for imposing the limits, they’ve done it to prevent some potentially messy questions in the future about how a 17 year old who is legally immature is pressured by the family/team to do something and then gets injured.
          By the way I’m not going to search for too many stats, but I’m sure there’d be a general decrease in the average age of the grid decade by decade.

          1. @mickey18

            I agree there has been a decrease in average age. Could you imagine talking about drivers the age of Button, Alonso or Raikkonen being close to retirement in the day of Fangio?

            I think it’s largely down to the ease with which the cars can be driven. Most physical sports keep competitors in the junior category as long as they can and F1 usedto be the same. Look at when Hamilton came in, people thought it was remarkable the maturity he showed but he still slipped up and on occasion his inexperience showed. Verstappen has been scarily consistent this year and I think you can thank how easy the cars are to drive now as much as his raw talent.

            But the age thing, no one who becomes elite in a discipline doesn’t do so without giving up their childhood. Everyone on that grid was in karts at like 5-6 years old and working through junior categories throughout their childhood years. All the same ethical concerns for safety are still applicable there regardless of the lack of popularity compared with F1. F1 is probably the safest motorsport in the world, when Verstappen binned it at Monaco I held my breath, but he jumped out unscathed.

    2. Karts are also a lot slower than F1 cars, so the G-loads in accidents are a lot lower. Plus there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of karters, but only 20/22 F1 drivers; that alone makes the raw numbers looks worse for the junior formulae. What you really should be looking at is the percentage risk; I’m willing to bet it’s comparable between karts and F1.

      1. @raceprouk

        The point of my argument doesn’t require absolute parity in stats. I’m just making the point that children begin motorsport very young, just because it’s not in the spotlight of the F1 circus doesn’t mean they aren’t already exposing themselves to risk for their passion. Keeping them out of F1 because of the controversy of them being hurt in F1 to me doesn’t make sense because they are already hurting themselves down in lower formula.

        And statistically 0% of minors competing in F1 have hurt themselves.

        1. And my point is that you have to take into account the scale of the risk, which is affected by factors such as speed and G-loads, both of which are a lot higher in F1.

          1. @raceprouk

            It’s not like there is some metric of risk where we can debate this scientifically. Yes F1 cars are faster and go through higher G loads, but the cars and tracks are all governed by those facts to meet minimum safety standards. Bianchi wasn’t pulling 5G at 200mph when he suffered a fatal crash, and neither are the kids in go karts that do every year.

            The logic of saying the cut off should be 18 because of the ethical problem of ‘what IF a legal minor got hurt’ doesn’t make sense only being applied to the discipline of F1 because percentage of risk aside (which neither of us has any data on so it’s entirely speculative) there is still the risk in the lower categories. Unless of course the logic is that F1 is the one we watch so we don’t have to see it taking place in other categories which makes it easier to stomach.

          2. It’s not like there is some metric of risk where we can debate this scientifically.

            Not even percentage of crashes that result in serious or fatal injury? Sounds pretty measurable to me.

          3. @raceprouk

            We’ve had two tragic fatalities in F1 cars in recent years yes. Both were in the slowest F1 car’s we’ve had in the last ten years though and neither were at race speed conditions, the cars outright performance wasn’t a factor. The danger was caused by improper safety protocols in both scenarios not the speed that F1 cars can achieve relative to other formula. Japan 2014 wasn’t dangerous because it was an F1 race, it was dangerous because it was a race held in those conditions full stop.

            And yes a percentage of crashes resulting in serious or fatal injury would be measurable, but I doubt very much those metrics are readily available and there have been so few in F1 during the last 10 years it would be hard to draw any statistical significance from them.

  3. I don’t get the COTD argument I have to say. What about the junior series and karts? They’re no safer are they? I have an idea the stats for karts are a lot worse than F1.

    1. I agree. If safety is really the goal the feeder series are the places to start, especially the ones associated with F1.

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        26th November 2015, 5:52

        some stats for go-karts from the USofA (1990-1999):
        “there were 113 go-kart-related deaths to children under 15 years old”
        This statistic covers both racing and leisure activities; but it is high enough (and only includes what the researchers could find from reports). @lockup

        1. 113 @coldfly, 10 per year. That is a sad perspective.

          (@philipgb your comment wasn’t up when I posted btw, or I’d have just agreed with it.)

          For me the biggest need is F1-standard stewarding in junior series, or stricter even, with plenty of bans

          I don’t know about the F1 age limit. Normally an F1 team wouldn’t go near a 17-year-old because they’d just crash all the time. I have an idea it was just part of the points thing which was a brazen power play.

          1. Maldonado has been 17 for 10 years.

          2. OmarRoncal - Go Seb!!! (@)
            26th November 2015, 12:57

            Markp and now you mention Maldo, there is a good point to support the 18-year-old rule. If Maldo (I hope not but) seriously injures or kills another driver, he will have to face the law as the adult he is. If you start to let rich dads give lots of money to poor teams to test their kids at 15 only to accumulate enough kms to get a superlicense… well, we could have more Maldos on track.

          3. @omarr-pepper Your comment doesn’t make much sense to me.

            If you start to let rich dads give lots of money to poor teams to test their kids at 15 only to accumulate enough kms to get a superlicense… well, we could have more Maldos on track.

            That has never been a problem. F1 has run for over 60 years and we’ve never seen someone younger than 18 until this year and it was only due to very specific circumstances (a bidding war between Red Bull and Mercedes). Also, Toro Rosso is pretty much the only team who sign drivers who aren’t 20 yet: we could say they have become experts in managing them.

            The Maldonado example just shows some people are mature at 17, others aren’t when they’re 27. An arbitrary age-limit doesn’t make much sense.

          4. Very hard to argue the ban on under 18’s is good after Verstappens performance this year. There must surely be a limit somewhere though before an F1 team pushes it’s luck but then again same could be said of any driver in F1….are they safe enough.

            I for example could drive a car at 12 but should I of had a road licence then? Of course not.

            F1 teams push limits and as drivers get ever smaller and lighter what would stop an F1 team putting a physically undeveloped young driver in as they are light. I suppose there has to be a limit and 18 seems to be the age most countries use for all manner of minimum age limits.

  4. “The surprise is that they are back on top so quickly.”

    I assume Bernie means the top of the podium. Ferrari are still about half a second and at least 216 points from the top…

    1. @gongtong Bernie talking out of his ‘you know where’ again.

  5. As an Andre Lotterer fan, I have always wanted to follow Japanese Super Formula, but have never managed to find English coverage. With Vandoorne set to race in Super Formula next year, does anyone know whether there is some English language coverage available? Otherwise, I need to start learning Japanese quick…

    1. It’s rare that I’m able to find any coverage at all (meaning live streaming or otherwise) for much of the Japanese calendar. Have you been able to find regular coverage anywhere? Do local Japanese stations livestream to the Internet?

    2. @william-brierty

      does anyone know whether there is some English language coverage available?

      One of the problems has been that for a long time all of the on-screen text was displayed in Kanji so for non-Japanese viewers even reading the driver name & race position graphics would have been impossible.
      Since the re-brand to Super Formula the broadcast has used English text but I still don’t believe they send out an international feed for non-Japanese broadcasters to add commentary to.

      All of this year’s races have been uploaded to this youtube channel, In Japanese but still.
      https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXdUsMh5rkS8xHmLluT8IMw/videos

  6. Interestingly Todt is keeping the pressure up on the manufacturers most strongly opposing him – by having a close look at their engines to check for any regularities after the season is over, stating that neither of the titles is set in stone quite yet (German AmuS)!

  7. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
    26th November 2015, 9:23

    To the point from Lucas Di Grassi and i totally agree. Tiff Needell said the same a few weeks back.

    For me even the name ‘Formula 1’ suggests highest extreme performance is its raison d’etre. The fastest way to the finish line, the premier formula.

    Terms like fuel saving and tyre management belong in WEC.
    F1 isn’t an endurance sport, and it’s identity crisis is turning it into a jack of all trades.

    1. F1 has to have some kind of rules as it is a formula so should never be a free for all but the rules can be very simple regards engines, 100kg fuel a race build what you want off you go. Unfortunately such a pure rule would contradict cost saving, F1 tries to be the fastest, most fuel efficient and cost saving. So just get rid of cost saving, leave the 100kg rule and let them go for it.

    2. @fullcoursecaution I’m not sure why everybody believes that endurance racing is about fuel saving and tyre management because in this era it is far from it. I think that this year’s World Endurance Championship is a fine example of it.

      We are no longer in an era where you would need to drive at 70-80% to get the car to the finish. The reliability of the cars (especially in LMP2 and in GTE) now is so good that you are able to drive absolutely flat out all of the time. Tyres are not changed at every pit stop so I’m not sure where that idea comes from and the only time I hear cars saving fuel is when the hybrid cars lift off for regenerating purposes. You only need to watch the battle in LMP1 across the season this year between Porsche and Audi (and the rare occasion Toyota looked good in cooler conditions) to really see this. And I feel that this is one reason why the 2015 WEC season was so darn good. No DRS so genuine overtaking. No constant tyre saving. The cars looked stunning static or on the move. And the drivers actually looked as if they were pushing all of the time whereas in F1 we have hardly seen that this year. F1 has become a ~90 minute endurance race whilst sportscar racing has become an (up to) 24 hour sprint race.

      I don’t think that fuel is too much of an issue in F1, teams running less than the 100kg limit at a lot of tracks only emphasises this. It’s more that the cars look so sluggish and uninteresting in the corners and the highway-style passing which has really turned me off this year. I just don’t get that ‘wow that is crazy’ feel from watching the cars either onboard or just generally now, as I did back from say 2005 for example.

      1. I didn’t want to make it sound as if I want F1 to revert back to the 2005 regulations, far from it! I just felt that the cars looked much more fun to watch then. The only time I enjoy watching the modern cars is in the wet.

    3. “Terms like fuel saving and tyre management belong in WEC.”

      Only in LMP1 are those things relevant, and only incidentally. WEC doesn’t manipulate its entire series and format to accommodate the wishes of Audi, Porsche, Toyota, et al with regard to hybrid (or diesel lol).

      For the rest of the field, going fast and winning are the main criteria.

      By contract, some bonehead (or several boneheads) thought it was brilliant to transform the entirety of Formula 1 to Formula H(ybrid), to the sad detriment of motorsport.

      1. It’s a case of trying to be all things to all men. Doing this leads to a lack of direction and a central theme is lost. Instead of making a core group of fans happy and facing criticism from other groups of fans they have tried to put a little of everything in there to make everyone happy but as every groups idea of F1 is then compromised all groups dislike it. I thought the idea of the fan survey was to identify the core things the majority of fans wanted then to implement them to make the core majority group of fans happy?

        1. I thought the idea of the fan survey was to identify the core things the majority of fans wanted then to implement them to make the core majority group of fans happy?

          Me too @markp. I’d love to see evidence of them taking the results of the fan survey on board and using it

      2. @geeyore, I would disagree about your assertion that the “WEC doesn’t manipulate its entire series and format to accommodate the wishes of Audi, Porsche, Toyota, et al with regard to hybrid (or diesel lol).” – on the contrary, the ACO has often biased the regulations towards manufacturers.

        For example, when it became clear that the first generation of Audi’s R10 diesel car was overweight, the ACO suddenly announced a week later that the minimum weight limit would be increased – coincidentally, the increase in weight just happened to match the amount that the R10 was rumoured to be overweight by. The head of the ACO has also made it clear that the regulations for the LMP1 class have been written to ensure that a non manufacturer entry will never be able to be faster than a hybrid powered manufacturer entry precisely because the manufacturers want to promote hybridisation – being beaten by a non hybrid car would therefore be bad for their publicity.

        1. The ACO raising the minimum weight to even out the field is a bad thing now? You do realise they continually adjust things to keep the field close via EoT and BoP, right?
          As for the hybrid/non-hybrid thing, there’s a reason they split LMP1 into LMP1-H and LMP1-L. The ACO correctly recognises an privateer team would struggle to fund a hybrid racer, so they restrict H to manufacturers and put the privateers into the cheaper L class.
          Of course, these cost considerations don’t factor into LMP2 (where manufacturers are banned) or LMGTE (where it’s a lot cheaper anyway).

    4. For me even the name ‘Formula 1’ suggests highest extreme performance is its raison d’etre. The fastest way to the finish line, the premier formula.

      The fastest way to the finish line may well be what people today believe F1 should be, However thats not what its traditionally been. There was a saying back in the day which was applied to F1 by several greats….. “The object of a race is to win at the slowest possible speed”.

      Terms like fuel saving and tyre management belong in WEC.
      F1 isn’t an endurance sport, and it’s identity crisis is turning it into a jack of all trades.

      Tyre & fuel management have to varying degrees always been a part of F1 & for a long time F1 was just as much an endurance event as Sportscar racing is today.

      The view from many current fans that F1 has always been about a flat out sprint with drivers on the limit from start to finish, But that view is wrong. Even when we had refueling it wasn’t a flat out sprint most of the time as drivers were doing some tyre/fuel management to ensure they could make the stint length required for there strategy to work.

      Tyre management may be more ‘extreme’ today than it traditionally was thanks to the thermal degredation model but a level of tyre management has always been part of F1 & always will be unless you design a tyre that can withstand well over a race distance with zero performance loss regardless of how hard you push it.

      1. This is correct the tyre situation is not black and white, tyres have always degraded, I think a lot of fans do not like that degradation is not a natural side effect of pure speed as currently it is artificially engineered in. It’s a bit like trying to re create a natural event.

        1. Hit the nail on the head there @markp

      2. “Tyre & fuel management have to varying degrees always been a part of F1 & for a long time F1 was just as much an endurance event as Sportscar racing is today.”

        Understood and agree. Simply pointing out that in F1, fuel management (“efficiency”) has been elevated as a primary objective of the entire series. This is not my personal inference or interpretation, this is what FIA has actually stated… in print. Whereas that’s not the case in WEC, even with the highly impressive and competitive LMP1 hybrids.

        FIA 2014 Formula One Power Unit Regulations

        01: The Goal
        “It is vital to use our resources with care. The game is still to go fast, but to go fast spending less – less money and less energy. This ratio, between result (speed) and consumption (finance, fuel and resources) is called efficiency. In future, the best car in Formula One will be the most efficient. This is what the new power unit regulations are designed to promote.”

        By gosh, I don’t think WEC has made any statement even approaching that kind of laughable hubris. They’re just out to race.

  8. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
    26th November 2015, 12:34

    @craig-o @geeyore @gt-racer

    Tyres and fuel have a minor role to play for sure, but they have become the essence of the competition as F1 has its priorities twisted.

    It always irks me a little during the pre show when the graphic comes up saying ‘Lap Record: M Schumacher, 2004’ or ‘Lap Record: JP Montoya, 2005.’ It reminds me that I’m not actually watching the best cars in the world battling it out, rather a watered down imitation of this presented as the real McCoy.

    Certainly we shouldn’t revert back to ’05 regs, we should go back to them, add a decade of development, then worry about the show.

    FE may be painfuly slow, at least it’s pushing boundaries. F1 is just pretending to.

    1. I have to say that I really relate to that comment @fullcoursecaution

      Each race weekend I look at the lap record and I keep wanting them to beat the times from 04 and 05 and find it depressing that they often aren’t in the same ball park :-(

      It would be nice if the were even at least as fast

      1. If you’re watching F1 just for the speed, then you’ve missed the point of racing. After all, if speed is all you want, why not just run time trials?

      2. Maybe but you have to remember that the track record is from races not quali and in 2004 and 2005 they had fuel stops so were often carrying no more than 40 or 50 percent of the fuel they have to today. It is very hard to compare as well as the tyres were different. If out and out speed was also the sole point of F1 eventually somewhere down the line you would hit a wall in that the drivers could no longer sustain the speeds and the tracks would need more and more run off to the point the crowd would be so far away they would probably need binoculars.

        2004 was also the 4th or 5 th straight year of continuous rules (other than small tweaks here and there) the rules currently seem to have a major change nearly every year.

  9. So Renault admits publicly to the the criticisms by Horner et al.
    -“You are not committed enough!” (We are investing more money into your engine than you are).
    -“This season is an example of a complete lack of discipline that there is in the management of our technical programme, and I am a part of that.” (Yup, sorry mate).

    What was that quote by Ghosn, “we didn’t get the acclaim when we were winning”? :rolleyes:

Comments are closed.